I know this is intended to help, but as a software Dev who does work where absolute time between two arbitrary clock times does need to resolve to the second... This is that xkcd comic about a 14th standard.
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
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.
@lemmy.world
A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
dart board;; science bs
rule #1: be kind
go to feed...
@lemmy.world
A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
dart board;; science bs
rule #1: be kind
go to feed...
What the fuck. EVERYONE gets bothered about that!
I can actually get behind this leap hour idea, but holy crap that is a bad way to present it
save