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

Thank you Michael for pointing this out. I’ve had InsideGNSS correct the on-line version. I would be willing to bet that it will happen in 2035, but I am not privy to any inside information. > On Mar 20, 2023, at 3:36 PM, Michael Deckers via LEAPSECS > wrote: > > >On 2023-03-20

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

Warner Losh writes: > 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' . The long-term average used to be "a leapsecond every 18 months - give

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

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

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

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

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

> 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

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

ericton.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

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

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

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

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." > >

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

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.

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

   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

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

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? >