At least most people who suggest this use one of the existing could-actually-work-even-though-it-will-never-be-implemented approaches (usually 364+1 "year day"

At least most people who suggest this use one of the existing could-actually-work-even-though-it-will-never-be-implemented approaches (usually 364+1 "year day" or +2 for a leap). There are a fractional number of days in a year. You can't have a year with an integral number of days (without varying the number of days in a year, i.e. leap years). The proposal to abandon leap seconds is appealing but as short-sighted as two-digit years. You'll have to dynamically adjust times eventually because the rate of the earth's rotation changes. We can either do it right, incrementally, and programmers can manage to implement a standard that's been around for over forty years, or we can ignore it and pass the problem along. I suppose I can guess what will happen there.