[LEAPSECS] BBC radio Crowd Science

[Michael.Deckers.]

    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.