On 2022-11-14 19:48, Steve Allen wrote:
The NYT article ends with Arias ruminating about how someday there will have to be a leap minute or leap hour.
Of course, nobody will propose leap minutes or leap hours in UTC after 2135 just to decrease the difference UTC - UT1. The reason why the CIPM (for now) sticks to the requirement that |UTC - UT1| be bounded is most probably the argument brought forward by some people from ISO who say that, without explicit bound on |UTC - UT1|, UTC had to change its name so that "polysemy" is avoided. Michael Deckers. _______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
