57
Time’s up for the leap second as scientists swap it for the leap hour (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 3 days ago by to c/science@lemmy.world
7 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 16 points 3 days ago (4 children)

This was a vote to basically say "the future will deal with it".

An hour is a long time! This means that, in an area that observes DST, they could be off by 2 hours. Not to mention China's one timezone situation.

I feel like a leap minute would've been more reasonable to deal with. Unless they're just betting on humans not needing computers (or, uh...time tracking) by the time a leap hour would be relevant

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    I agree about leap minute, I really don't see why they leaped (ha) straight to an hour.

    Well, I kinda do - working with whole-hour offsets is kind of a solved issue (timezones, DST) whereas there isn't really a solution for a minute. The clever people at Google (IIRC) came up with the "smear second" as a pretty elegant way to implement a leap second, but the same approach wouldn't scale all that well to a full minute. You'd have to smear it over 2 months or something.

    But if the time does come to implement a leap hour, that's going to be just as hard to deal with! You basically have to redefine UTC to be what was previously UTC+1:00, and then what? Computers can't deal with that any more than that can deal with 61 seconds in a minute.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 5 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    3 hours. Some places are in the wrong timezone for economic reasons. Lot's of western european countries should be in GMT according to longitude.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •