[LEAPSECS] happy anniversary pips
seaman at noao.edu
Sun Feb 9 13:13:15 EST 2014
On Feb 8, 2014, at 5:11 PM, Brooks Harris <brooks at edlmax.com> wrote:
> On 2014-02-07 04:12 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>> In message <20140206151947.GA25053 at ucolick.org>, Steve Allen writes:
>>> Taken at face value Google's Site Reliability Team would seem to be
>>> arguing for the return to the bad old days of the rubber second.
>> Yeah, they're totally opposed to having equal-length seconds, and they
>> really showing the world with this demonstration, aren't they ?
>> I have heard a fair bit in private communications about why and how
>> google did implement the leap-smear, and let me assure you that
>> they have a special place in Googles hell reserved for those who
>> prevented leapseconds from having a quick and swift death back when
>> that was first proposed.
> I probably missed discussion of this survey a couple years ago.
Not as much as there should have been. Thanks for reintroducing it into the mix.
> I note two individuals at Google replied. One answered " I am not satisfied and prefer UTC redefined without leap of second", and one "I am satisfied with the current definition of UTC which includes leap second".
> Maybe there's not really a consensus within Google either?
> INTERNATIONAL EARTH ROTATION AND REFERENCE SYSTEMS SERVICE (IERS)
> EARTH ORIENTATION CENTER
> ANSWERS OF THE QUESTIONNARY CONCERNING A POSSIBLE REDEFINITION OF UTC
Regarding "Google Hell", this has a particular meaning:
None of our factions has ever been particularly concerned about query placement, and in general the various resources are easy enough to find. One might, however, point out that the Google Blog itself doesn't show up until the third page of results ;-)
If anything has prevented leap seconds from death it is the weakness of the proposal itself. And the real-world distinction between Universal Time and Atomic Time; "Death to leap seconds!" is the rallying cry of somebody who wants to pretend that two distinct concepts are the same thing.
Regarding "private communications", the most obvious thing about this mailing list is the dearth of participation from supporters of the death penalty. Rather than anecdotes in private email, such individuals are encouraged to participate here. Or perhaps as the EOC questionnaire shows, there are simply many more supporters of the status quo:
The plural of anecdote is not data.
More information about the LEAPSECS