We each wear multiple hats. Two of mine are 1) to point out that physical
reality trumps standards and software, and that 2) that there are precious few
conversations here that haven’t occurred before:
- Warner has explained his use case in the past. There are likely no
engineering use cases more varied than those related to timekeeping. He’s
simply asking for more notice of future leap second scheduling. It appears
possible now to lengthen this significantly beyond 6 months. The standard in
force would permit this. (Although as Warner points out, LORAN has shut down
since last we talked about it.)
(Whereas the “programmers stink so we need to dumb down the standards” thread
has been flayed alive on the dissection table ;-)
We should be pleased to see lively debate continuing in this group after 15
years. But the ancient wisdom of Usenet holds - better discussions result from
reviewing the talking points contained in prior threads. We don’t have just a
few threads available to us on leapsecs, we have the Bayeux Tapestry:
https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs (since 2007)
http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/navyls/ (2000-2007)
In which you will find words similar to:
Leapseconds are a means to an end. It is simply true that Mean Solar
Time and Atomic Time are two different things. Civil timekeeping use cases
descend from both, but especially from the fact that day means “synodic day”
and thus pertains to solar time. Seeking to pretend otherwise will inevitably
cause engineering requirements to rear upwards and demand attention. Systems
engineering should be dealt with up front to avoid risks and repercussions (and
unnecessary expense).
Rob
—
http://youtu.be/6bOy3RNyWME
_______________________________________________
LEAPSECS mailing list
[email protected]
https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
