Tony Finch wrote: > I reckon the timezone fudge is workable for rate errors as large as 1e-5, > which would imply a timezone change every 11 years. > > More speculation along these lines: http://fanf.livejournal.com/116480.html
And I have reckoned the exact opposite. A leap hour or timezone shift per decade is way too frequent for people to put up with. The statement that this is due to a rate error is also a tacit acknowledgement that time-of-day == mean solar time. As you say in your journal: "the two timescales arrangement is the best way to model what is actually going on". "I reckon" is not a coherent plan. A clear plan (whatever its nature) should be developed before action is taken. Why is this controversial? And need it be pointed out again that absolutely nothing about the "Draft Revision to ITU-R Recommendation TF.460-6" even breathes a whisper that any variation of "timezone fudge" is on the table. No "temporal taffy" either. Just cease and desist and let other people clean up the mess in the kitchen. If timezone fudge is a tasty part of the meal, then it should be simple to write down the recipe. Look before you [choose not to] leap. Rob Seaman National Optical Astronomy Observatory Tucson, AZ _______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list [email protected] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
