On 2017-01-29 04:48, John Sauter writes about labeling a positive leap second 59 as done by Felicitas Arias:
She prefers to label the leap second as a second 23:59:59, but the UTC definition calls it 23:59:60.
Yes, of course -- I did not want to dispute that. My point was that Arias' labeling makes it clear that the latest discontinuity in TAI - UTC occurred when TAI assumed the value 2017-01-01 + 36 s. The ITU labeling (nor any other specification in ITU-T TF.460-6) does not imply the precise instant of the discontinuity, nor does IERS Bulletin C52. And about the "danger" of leap seconds through computer failures, John Sauter writes:
I would not blame leap seconds but the programmer who did not properly test for leap seconds when developing his software. Leap seconds have been around for over 30 years, so it isn't like they are a new requirement.
Of course you are right -- leap seconds cannot be blamed for computer failures, but careless programmers and inconsistent or incomplete program specifications may well be. But my point was not who or what was to blame -- I rather wanted to indicate circumstances where even the slowest bureaucracy can react swiftly in a very pragmatic manner: if the presence of leap seconds might cause harm to human health then their abolition is likely. See the introduction of the unit Sv as a special name for Gy by the BIPM as an example. Michael Deckers. _______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list [email protected] https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
