Magnus Danielson wrote:

However, celebrating 1234567890 seconds of time_t makes no sense at the time that time_t reads 1234567890 since it is not the number of seconds from the reference epoch, it is a form of "mock seconds" to make the scales fit.

Is that really a good reason not to celebrate a silly milestone on a Friday afternoon? :-)

This is like the inane debate about whether the millennium was New Year's Eve 1999 or 2000. The real answer is to celebrate both - as a reason to have a most excellent party, that is. If forced to choose, pick the earlier event since that preserves the second opportunity as well.

I think it's clear that Unix time has the well-established naive mapping to some form of UT. You can pick UT1 or UTC, giving answers that differ by a fraction of a second. Anything that secularly counts other than 86400 per UT day isn't Unix time: this includes counting either UTC or TAI seconds.

It is naive yes...


From Dictionary.com:

naive -adjective
1. having or showing unaffected simplicity of nature or absence of artificiality; unsophisticated; ingenuous. 2. having or showing a lack of experience, judgment, or information; credulous: She's so naive she believes everything she reads. He has a very naive attitude toward politics. 3. having or marked by a simple, unaffectedly direct style reflecting little or no formal training or technique: valuable naive 19th-century American portrait paintings. 4. not having previously been the subject of a scientific experiment, as an animal.

The little dig here, of course, is that Zefram means naive with a definition something like #1 and Magnus is asserting #2.

However - there is real value in preserving simplicity of design as with definition #3. Zefram's explanation is succinct and accurate. UTC is a flavor of universal time. UT is phase-locked to the Sun.

Meanwhile, while we chat amiably, the ITU is treating the whole world like #4.

Rob

_______________________________________________
LEAPSECS mailing list
[email protected]
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs

Reply via email to