Re: [LEAPSECS] Inside GNSS published an update of my CGSIC talk

[Steffen Nurpmeso]

Warner Losh wrote in
 :
 |On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 2:46 PM Richard B Langley  wrote:
 |> "I'd also note that if GLASNOS can't be fixed by 2035 ..."
 |>
 |> Interesting slip of the tongue.
 |>
 |> Glasnos[t] was taken to mean increased openness and transparency in
 |> government institutions and activities in the Soviet Union (USSR). \
 |> Glasnost
 |> reflected a commitment of the Gorbachev administration to allowing Soviet
 |> citizens to discuss publicly the problems of their system and potential
 |> solutions.
 |>
 |> Of course, GLONASS was meant. But we are reminded that in today's Russia,
 |> openness and transparency, not to mention freedom of speech, is a \
 |> thing of
 |> the past.
 |>
 |
 |ah, yes. I lisned to too many Gorby speeches back in the day, eh?
 |
 |Thanks for the amusing correction...

Yes, they were fooled and plundered.

--steffen
|
|Der Kragenbaer,The moon bear,
|der holt sich munter   he cheerfully and one by one
|einen nach dem anderen runter  wa.ks himself off
|(By Robert Gernhardt)
___
LEAPSECS mailing list
LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com
https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs

Re: [LEAPSECS] Inside GNSS published an update of my CGSIC talk

[Steffen Nurpmeso]

Richard B Langley wrote in
 :
 |"I'd also note that if GLASNOS can't be fixed by 2035 ..."
 |
 |Interesting slip of the tongue.
 |
 |Glasnos[t] was taken to mean increased openness and transparency in \
 |government institutions and activities in the Soviet Union (USSR). \
 |Glasnost reflected a commitment of the Gorbachev administration to \
 |allowing Soviet citizens to discuss publicly the problems of their \
 |system and potential solutions.
 |
 |Of course, GLONASS was meant. But we are reminded that in today's Russia, \
 |openness and transparency, not to mention freedom of speech, is a thing \
 |of the past.
 |
 |Sorry for being a bit off topic.

First of all you should really point the fingers at your own nose
or i start being off-topic no matter what.  Western institutions
lie all the time.  That is not only Fox News, but all i know.

In Iraq there were >1.200.000 kills, these are UN, John Hopkins
University, and Iraq numbers, and i hate the UN says ~430.000
_direct_ kills on some front page, and you have to read 40 pages,
and wonder why the remaining 800.000 ran away from McDonald's.
Btw in Afghanistan and Pakistan there were 250.000+ kills.  There
millions of people are starving, in Iraq are millions of people
"below poor" (how do you say that in english).  In Yemen many
millions are starving.  All western weapons there.
And no, i think it was for fun only?

Mind you that the western world is worth 40 percent of all the
environmental damage, USA alone >25 percent.  Of mass extinction
and non-reversible damages.  Do you talk about for real?
Oh, they knew that 150 years ago.  Read Marx, Baby.  The Club of
Rome pointed fingers 50 years ago, 1972.
Hundreds of millions of human beings will loose their home when
the oceans rise, which they will do.  That is the wild wild west.
Do you mean now with all the economic and political pressure and
that multi-multi-multi billion western economic boost (with thirty
and more trillion depths, let me wonder how) small countries will
have the funds to go green?  I do not.

Btw i read TASS, and this is "more free" than that terrible
propaganda of the western media.  It is ridiculous that all
western media blindly follows the guideline of the american
general Stanley A. McCrystal (nomen est omen) who said "I believe
the perception caused by civilian casualties is one of the most
dangerous enemies we face".  Of course many things are not said.
The country is in war and has been increasingly put under pressure
since at least half a decade, even longer, to put it into the
follower line of the western politics.  Luckily they now produce
enough food again, otherwise the Russians would starve again, like
they had to 25 years ago.  There is no real, honest mercy from
western world.  I stated almost thirty years ago that brokers and
fonds and these should never be allowed to trade with anything
finite or living, we see again how the western money plays games
at the cost of the poorest.

Btw do you know anything about that conflict?  Tell me the truth,
if you can.  Do you know something about the date the western side
announced the tank deliveries?  I bet you do not.  So, for me, in
spirit of the wonder Harry Mulisch and his "The discovery of
Heaven" (and there are books of him i like more) i say "the
screaming blue eyed is Kindergartened, but the real hero of our
story will eventually discover heaven".  I can also understand why
the orthodox priest supports it.  Really.  That is what i hope.

So to leap tick it.  Btw this is your own culture and religion,
with the own nose.  Unfortunately we have forgotten.  And
regarding same sex ...  I know they cannot "go out" there.  But
you know, Moses said it "is disgusting", which very well can be
his own opinion, but he also said there shall be "no male temple
prostitutes", and often, in history, in that book of your own
culture, you know, after very, very bad times, they did throw them
"out of the temple" again, which means (a) they had to, (b) they
wanted, (c) they were expecting something from it.  This is
Christianity.  I am Bhuddhist, though.  In many cultures this is
somewhat open, as it seems to be natural over the course of
thousands of years, though the people are looked down to, are of
low rank.  Often.  But i cannot help it so or so, at least Putin
explicitly stated in the nation-wide speech that they can do "in
private" [whatever they want].  He talked about it.  (The law was
brought in by two female representatives, mind you.)  I mean this
is mostly how we treat our own sexuality, too.  Except in Brasil
alike carnival.  Except Woody Allen in one of the episodes of
"Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex* (*But Were
Afraid" to Ask".  This is from 1972, like Leap Seconds!!!

Hasta la victoria siempre!

P.S.: to make it explicit that i as a hundred hard core German
_absolutely_ oppose the US hegemony ("No more Endsieg for
noone!!"), and the western "colonialism" that greedily destroys
life on earth (..i have to 

Re: [LEAPSECS] Inside GNSS published an update of my CGSIC talk

[Warner Losh]

On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 2:46 PM Richard B Langley  wrote:

> "I'd also note that if GLASNOS can't be fixed by 2035 ..."
>
> Interesting slip of the tongue.
>
> Glasnos[t] was taken to mean increased openness and transparency in
> government institutions and activities in the Soviet Union (USSR). Glasnost
> reflected a commitment of the Gorbachev administration to allowing Soviet
> citizens to discuss publicly the problems of their system and potential
> solutions.
>
> Of course, GLONASS was meant. But we are reminded that in today's Russia,
> openness and transparency, not to mention freedom of speech, is a thing of
> the past.
>

ah, yes. I lisned to too many Gorby speeches back in the day, eh?

Thanks for the amusing correction...

Warner


> Sorry for being a bit off topic.
>
> -- Richard Langley
>
>
> -
> | Richard B. LangleyE-mail: l...@unb.ca
>|
> | Geodetic Research Laboratory  Web: http://gge.unb.ca
>   |
> | Dept. of Geodesy and Geomatics EngineeringPhone:+1 506 453-5142
>  |
> | University of New Brunswick
>  |
> | Fredericton, N.B., Canada  E3B 5A3
>   |
> |Fredericton?  Where's that?  See: http://www.fredericton.ca/
>|
>
> -
>
> 
> From: LEAPSECS  on behalf of Warner Losh
> 
> Sent: March 20, 2023 5:18 PM
> To: Leap Second Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [LEAPSECS] Inside GNSS published an update of my CGSIC talk
>
> ✉External message: Use caution.
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 1:37 PM Michael Deckers via LEAPSECS <
> leapsecs@leapsecond.com> wrote:
>
> On 2023-03-20 07:54, Jürgen Appel via LEAPSECS wrote:
>
>
> > In your Conclusion, you say "the CGPM resolution also stipulates that no
> > change to current practices can occur before 2035."
> >
> > This is not how I read read the CGPM document on the BIPM website:
> > "The General Conference on Weights and Measures (CGPM), at its 27th
> meeting
> > [...] decides that the maximum value for the difference (UT1-UTC) will be
> > increased in, or before, 2035,"
> >
> > So in case the negative leap seconds become a real threat, according to
> my
> > interpretation is is an option to increase the tolerance value earlier
> than
> > 2035 to avoid trying out negative leap seconds a last and first time.
> >
> > Can someone confirm my view?
>
>
>
>  You read correctly, the French (official) version has
>
> ..."décide que la valeur maximale pour la différence
> (UT1 - UTC) sera augmentée au plus tard en 2035,"
>
>  which means "in 2035 at the latest".
>
>  Note also that the definition of UTC as approved by the
>  CGPM never mentions _any_ explict bound for |UT1 - UTC|; it
>  only says that (TAI - UTC) is an integral multiple of 1 s
>  as determined by the IERS. It is the IERS who state that
>
> "Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) a measure of time
>  that conforms, within approximately 1 s, to the mean
>  diurnal motion of the Sun and serves as the basis of
>  all civil timekeeping."
>
>  quoting the IAU "Nomenclature for Fundamental Astronomy (NFA)"
>  found at http://syrte.obspm.fr/iauWGnfa/NFA Glossary.html.
>
>  This seems to be lenient enough to allow for not scheduling
>  a negative leap second even in the case that the difference
>  (UT1 - UTC) should go a bit below -1 s before 2035.
>
> So is "approximately" here to be read in the "astronomer" sense that it's
> that, give or take an order of magnitude, or some more close reading :) For
> astronomy, often times things that are approximately the same can vary
> quite a bit, and that's fine.
>
> More seriously even 2s is approximately 1s if there's some kind of effort
> to keep it from freewheeling to 10s, 100s, or 1000s of seconds.
>
> For example, the Gregorian calendar approximates the year over the
> centuries, but any given year can deviate up to 2 days (worst case) from
> the idealized solstice dates.
>
> I'd also note that if GLASNOS can't be fixed by 2035, then a fallback to a
> schedule of leap seconds to keep the answer approximately 1s in the long
> haul could also be on the table. Having it be scheduled, rather than
> observational, has advantages: everybody gets leap years right, and will
> for the next few hundred years (maybe with a glitch at 2100 and 2400). A
> much lower percentage get leap seconds right because leap second knowledge
> propagates imperfectly, even after all these years of trying (my first
> anti-leapsecond screeds date back maybe 20 years). So my first choice is
> always 'none, cope with shifting civil time on the scale of centuries' but
> my second choice is 'schedule for the long-term average and don't worry
> about going > 1s' .
>
> Warner
>
>  Michael Deckers.
>
> 

Re: [LEAPSECS] Inside GNSS published an update of my CGSIC talk

[Richard B Langley]

"I'd also note that if GLASNOS can't be fixed by 2035 ..."

Interesting slip of the tongue.

Glasnos[t] was taken to mean increased openness and transparency in government 
institutions and activities in the Soviet Union (USSR). Glasnost reflected a 
commitment of the Gorbachev administration to allowing Soviet citizens to 
discuss publicly the problems of their system and potential solutions.

Of course, GLONASS was meant. But we are reminded that in today's Russia, 
openness and transparency, not to mention freedom of speech, is a thing of the 
past.

Sorry for being a bit off topic.

-- Richard Langley

-
| Richard B. Langley                            E-mail: l...@unb.ca         |
| Geodetic Research Laboratory                  Web: http://gge.unb.ca      |
| Dept. of Geodesy and Geomatics Engineering    Phone:    +1 506 453-5142   |
| University of New Brunswick                                               |
| Fredericton, N.B., Canada  E3B 5A3                                        |
|        Fredericton?  Where's that?  See: http://www.fredericton.ca/       |
-


From: LEAPSECS  on behalf of Warner Losh 

Sent: March 20, 2023 5:18 PM
To: Leap Second Discussion List
Subject: Re: [LEAPSECS] Inside GNSS published an update of my CGSIC talk

✉External message: Use caution.


On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 1:37 PM Michael Deckers via LEAPSECS 
mailto:leapsecs@leapsecond.com>> wrote:

On 2023-03-20 07:54, Jürgen Appel via LEAPSECS wrote:


> In your Conclusion, you say "the CGPM resolution also stipulates that no
> change to current practices can occur before 2035."
>
> This is not how I read read the CGPM document on the BIPM website:
> "The General Conference on Weights and Measures (CGPM), at its 27th meeting
> [...] decides that the maximum value for the difference (UT1-UTC) will be
> increased in, or before, 2035,"
>
> So in case the negative leap seconds become a real threat, according to my
> interpretation is is an option to increase the tolerance value earlier than
> 2035 to avoid trying out negative leap seconds a last and first time.
>
> Can someone confirm my view?



 You read correctly, the French (official) version has

..."décide que la valeur maximale pour la différence
(UT1 - UTC) sera augmentée au plus tard en 2035,"

 which means "in 2035 at the latest".

 Note also that the definition of UTC as approved by the
 CGPM never mentions _any_ explict bound for |UT1 - UTC|; it
 only says that (TAI - UTC) is an integral multiple of 1 s
 as determined by the IERS. It is the IERS who state that

"Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) a measure of time
 that conforms, within approximately 1 s, to the mean
 diurnal motion of the Sun and serves as the basis of
 all civil timekeeping."

 quoting the IAU "Nomenclature for Fundamental Astronomy (NFA)"
 found at http://syrte.obspm.fr/iauWGnfa/NFA Glossary.html.

 This seems to be lenient enough to allow for not scheduling
 a negative leap second even in the case that the difference
 (UT1 - UTC) should go a bit below -1 s before 2035.

So is "approximately" here to be read in the "astronomer" sense that it's that, 
give or take an order of magnitude, or some more close reading :) For 
astronomy, often times things that are approximately the same can vary quite a 
bit, and that's fine.

More seriously even 2s is approximately 1s if there's some kind of effort to 
keep it from freewheeling to 10s, 100s, or 1000s of seconds.

For example, the Gregorian calendar approximates the year over the centuries, 
but any given year can deviate up to 2 days (worst case) from the idealized 
solstice dates.

I'd also note that if GLASNOS can't be fixed by 2035, then a fallback to a 
schedule of leap seconds to keep the answer approximately 1s in the long haul 
could also be on the table. Having it be scheduled, rather than observational, 
has advantages: everybody gets leap years right, and will for the next few 
hundred years (maybe with a glitch at 2100 and 2400). A much lower percentage 
get leap seconds right because leap second knowledge propagates imperfectly, 
even after all these years of trying (my first anti-leapsecond screeds date 
back maybe 20 years). So my first choice is always 'none, cope with shifting 
civil time on the scale of centuries' but my second choice is 'schedule for the 
long-term average and don't worry about going > 1s' .

Warner

 Michael Deckers.

___
LEAPSECS mailing list
LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com
https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
___
LEAPSECS mailing list
LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com

Re: [LEAPSECS] Inside GNSS published an update of my CGSIC talk

[Eric Scace]

   An experimental physicist I knew often reminded me: “Three is equal to two, 
for large values of two and small values of three."

> On Mar 20, 2023, at 16:18, Warner Losh  wrote:
> 
> More seriously even 2s is approximately 1s if there's some kind of effort to 
> keep it from freewheeling to 10s, 100s, or 1000s of seconds.
> 

___
LEAPSECS mailing list
LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com
https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs

Re: [LEAPSECS] smear

[Warner Losh]

On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 2:10 PM Steve Allen  wrote:

> On Mon 2023-03-20T19:36:51+ Michael Deckers via LEAPSECS hath writ:
> > � This seems to be lenient enough to allow for not scheduling
> > � a negative leap second even in the case that the difference
> > � (UT1 - UTC) should go a bit below -1 s before 2035.
>
> And today in the NTP working group mail list we see that the
> big guns expect to force the issue because
>
> > From: Doug Arnold 
> > Subject: Re: [Ntp] draft-ntp-ntpv5-requirements update for IETF 116
> >
> > Re leap smearing:
> >
> > Operators from multiple data centers tell me that they intend to
> > smear leap seconds.  When I pointed out the pitfalls they were
> > undeterred.  I have come to understand that leap smearing is viewed as
> > less problematic than trying to fix leap second handing in distributed
> > database software.
>
> they have taken the stance that if leap seconds do not go away then
> they will smear.
>
> This is like Eucla Australia setting their clocks the way they
> please and daring the state government to do something about it.
>

Pragmatically, it's a lot easier to smear 3 or 4 more times than to fix all
the code that leap seconds break. Smearing is an ugly hack that allows
broken code to get things less wrong than powering through a leap second
and the result +1s or -1s errors. The trains must run on time, UTC be
damned, eh?

Warner
___
LEAPSECS mailing list
LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com
https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs

Re: [LEAPSECS] Inside GNSS published an update of my CGSIC talk

[Warner Losh]

On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 1:37 PM Michael Deckers via LEAPSECS <
leapsecs@leapsecond.com> wrote:

>
> On 2023-03-20 07:54, Jürgen Appel via LEAPSECS wrote:
>
>
> > In your Conclusion, you say "the CGPM resolution also stipulates that no
> > change to current practices can occur before 2035."
> >
> > This is not how I read read the CGPM document on the BIPM website:
> > "The General Conference on Weights and Measures (CGPM), at its 27th
> meeting
> > [...] decides that the maximum value for the difference (UT1-UTC) will be
> > increased in, or before, 2035,"
> >
> > So in case the negative leap seconds become a real threat, according to
> my
> > interpretation is is an option to increase the tolerance value earlier
> than
> > 2035 to avoid trying out negative leap seconds a last and first time.
> >
> > Can someone confirm my view?
>
>
>
>  You read correctly, the French (official) version has
>
> ..."décide que la valeur maximale pour la différence
> (UT1 - UTC) sera augmentée au plus tard en 2035,"
>
>  which means "in 2035 at the latest".
>
>  Note also that the definition of UTC as approved by the
>  CGPM never mentions _any_ explict bound for |UT1 - UTC|; it
>  only says that (TAI - UTC) is an integral multiple of 1 s
>  as determined by the IERS. It is the IERS who state that
>
> "Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) a measure of time
>  that conforms, within approximately 1 s, to the mean
>  diurnal motion of the Sun and serves as the basis of
>  all civil timekeeping."
>
>  quoting the IAU "Nomenclature for Fundamental Astronomy (NFA)"
>  found at http://syrte.obspm.fr/iauWGnfa/NFA Glossary.html.
>
>  This seems to be lenient enough to allow for not scheduling
>  a negative leap second even in the case that the difference
>  (UT1 - UTC) should go a bit below -1 s before 2035.
>

So is "approximately" here to be read in the "astronomer" sense that it's
that, give or take an order of magnitude, or some more close reading :) For
astronomy, often times things that are approximately the same can vary
quite a bit, and that's fine.

More seriously even 2s is approximately 1s if there's some kind of effort
to keep it from freewheeling to 10s, 100s, or 1000s of seconds.

For example, the Gregorian calendar approximates the year over the
centuries, but any given year can deviate up to 2 days (worst case) from
the idealized solstice dates.

I'd also note that if GLASNOS can't be fixed by 2035, then a fallback to a
schedule of leap seconds to keep the answer approximately 1s in the long
haul could also be on the table. Having it be scheduled, rather than
observational, has advantages: everybody gets leap years right, and will
for the next few hundred years (maybe with a glitch at 2100 and 2400). A
much lower percentage get leap seconds right because leap second knowledge
propagates imperfectly, even after all these years of trying (my first
anti-leapsecond screeds date back maybe 20 years). So my first choice is
always 'none, cope with shifting civil time on the scale of centuries' but
my second choice is 'schedule for the long-term average and don't worry
about going > 1s' .

Warner


>  Michael Deckers.
>
> ___
> LEAPSECS mailing list
> LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com
> https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
>
___
LEAPSECS mailing list
LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com
https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs

[LEAPSECS] smear

[Steve Allen]

On Mon 2023-03-20T19:36:51+ Michael Deckers via LEAPSECS hath writ:
> � This seems to be lenient enough to allow for not scheduling
> � a negative leap second even in the case that the difference
> � (UT1 - UTC) should go a bit below -1 s before 2035.

And today in the NTP working group mail list we see that the
big guns expect to force the issue because

> From: Doug Arnold 
> Subject: Re: [Ntp] draft-ntp-ntpv5-requirements update for IETF 116
>
> Re leap smearing:
>
> Operators from multiple data centers tell me that they intend to
> smear leap seconds.  When I pointed out the pitfalls they were
> undeterred.  I have come to understand that leap smearing is viewed as
> less problematic than trying to fix leap second handing in distributed
> database software.

they have taken the stance that if leap seconds do not go away then
they will smear.

This is like Eucla Australia setting their clocks the way they
please and daring the state government to do something about it.

--
Steve Allen  WGS-84 (GPS)
UCO/Lick Observatory--ISB 260  Natural Sciences II, Room 165  Lat  +36.99855
1156 High Street   Voice: +1 831 459 3046 Lng -122.06015
Santa Cruz, CA 95064   https://www.ucolick.org/~sla/  Hgt +250 m
___
LEAPSECS mailing list
LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com
https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs

Re: [LEAPSECS] Inside GNSS published an update of my CGSIC talk

[Michael Deckers via LEAPSECS]

On 2023-03-20 19:36, Michael Deckers wrote:




    This seems to be lenient enough to allow for not scheduling
    a negative leap second even in the case that the difference
    (UT1 - UTC) should go a bit below -1 s before 2035.


   when he meant "a bit above +1 s"

   MD.


___
LEAPSECS mailing list
LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com
https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs

Re: [LEAPSECS] Inside GNSS published an update of my CGSIC talk

[Michael Deckers via LEAPSECS]

   On 2023-03-20 07:54, Jürgen Appel via LEAPSECS wrote:



In your Conclusion, you say "the CGPM resolution also stipulates that no
change to current practices can occur before 2035."

This is not how I read read the CGPM document on the BIPM website:
"The General Conference on Weights and Measures (CGPM), at its 27th meeting
[...] decides that the maximum value for the difference (UT1-UTC) will be
increased in, or before, 2035,"

So in case the negative leap seconds become a real threat, according to my
interpretation is is an option to increase the tolerance value earlier than
2035 to avoid trying out negative leap seconds a last and first time.

Can someone confirm my view?




    You read correctly, the French (official) version has

   ..."décide que la valeur maximale pour la différence
   (UT1 - UTC) sera augmentée au plus tard en 2035,"

    which means "in 2035 at the latest".

    Note also that the definition of UTC as approved by the
    CGPM never mentions _any_ explict bound for |UT1 - UTC|; it
    only says that (TAI - UTC) is an integral multiple of 1 s
    as determined by the IERS. It is the IERS who state that

   "Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) a measure of time
    that conforms, within approximately 1 s, to the mean
    diurnal motion of the Sun and serves as the basis of
    all civil timekeeping."

    quoting the IAU "Nomenclature for Fundamental Astronomy (NFA)"
    found at http://syrte.obspm.fr/iauWGnfa/NFA Glossary.html.

    This seems to be lenient enough to allow for not scheduling
    a negative leap second even in the case that the difference
    (UT1 - UTC) should go a bit below -1 s before 2035.

    Michael Deckers.

___
LEAPSECS mailing list
LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com
https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs

Re: [LEAPSECS] Inside GNSS published an update of my CGSIC talk

[Jürgen Appel via LEAPSECS]

Dear Leap,

On Monday, 20 March 2023 00:24:56 CET, you wrote:

> 
> [Screen-Shot-2023-03-19-at-4.44.52-PM.jpg]
> Will We Have a Negative Leap
> Second?
> insidegnss.com

Thanks for the interesting read!

In your Conclusion, you say "the CGPM resolution also stipulates that no 
change to current practices can occur before 2035." 

This is not how I read read the CGPM document on the BIPM website:
"The General Conference on Weights and Measures (CGPM), at its 27th meeting 
[...] decides that the maximum value for the difference (UT1-UTC) will be 
increased in, or before, 2035,"

So in case the negative leap seconds become a real threat, according to my 
interpretation is is an option to increase the tolerance value earlier than 
2035 to avoid trying out negative leap seconds a last and first time. 

Can someone confirm my view?

Best regards,
Jürgen Appel
___
LEAPSECS mailing list
LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com
https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs