On leap minutes:
> Because there's nothing computer programmers handle better than special cases which only occur every hundred years or so. How in the world could this be an improvement?
If it's less than 60 times as disruptive, it's an improvement.
> everybody's going to hate it at least sixty times as much as they hate leap seconds now
I doubt that.
> If something is difficult, you do it more often.
It has to be more often than leap seconds to really get those gears oiled. Unless this is a proposal to do leap deciseconds, I don't think this method reduces the pain.
> But before 1972 UTC and TAI were kept in much closer synchronisation [...] (No, I'm not advocating returning to this state of affairs.)
Coward! But seriously, I think this hurts the previous argument significantly.
> Because there's nothing computer programmers handle better than special cases which only occur every hundred years or so. How in the world could this be an improvement?
If it's less than 60 times as disruptive, it's an improvement.
> everybody's going to hate it at least sixty times as much as they hate leap seconds now
I doubt that.
> If something is difficult, you do it more often.
It has to be more often than leap seconds to really get those gears oiled. Unless this is a proposal to do leap deciseconds, I don't think this method reduces the pain.
> But before 1972 UTC and TAI were kept in much closer synchronisation [...] (No, I'm not advocating returning to this state of affairs.)
Coward! But seriously, I think this hurts the previous argument significantly.