On 2016-10-09 11:32 PM, John Sauter wrote:
On Sun, 2016-10-09 at 15:12 -0400, Brooks Harris wrote:
I took the lack of mention of leap seconds to mean that leap
seconds
ere not a problem. The output of the NISTDC units is an
astonishingly
accurate 1 pulse per second. That feeds NTP, which handles leap
seconds using a table. As long as the table is kept up to date,
everyone agrees on each second's name.
Except the one to be called YYYY-MM-DDT23:59:60.
There are 86401 pegs in the (positive) Leap Second UTC day. There are
86400 holes in traditional timescales in which to put them. Something
has to to go missing - the mapping is indeterminate. Common practice
of introducing Leap Seconds on local timescales simultaneous with its
introduction at UTC places these indeterminate labels at different
time-of-day points along each local timescale. Non standardized and
politically driven Daylight Savings rules further complicates when
these indeterminate moments occur. Meantime there is no standardized
way to keep the Leap Second tables automatically updated to begin
with.
-Brooks
Not being a traditionalist myself, I don't feel that there is anything
wrong with 23:59:60 as a label for a particular second. Thus, I don't
feel the need to map the 86,401 seconds of the last day of 2016 into
86,400 "holes", and therefore I do not suffer any indeterminacy.
John Sauter ([email protected])
You are a fortunate individual. I continue to suffer from intermittent
lags due to temporal radiation exposure.
-Brooks
_______________________________________________
LEAPSECS mailing list
[email protected]
https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
_______________________________________________
LEAPSECS mailing list
[email protected]
https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
