Hacker News Reader

>There are many time keeping devices that are not updated as often as UTC leap seconds are introduced.

Isn't this an argument against using TAI in certain applications though? i.e. if you're designing a system which relies on non-leapsecond-updated devices to be in sync with devices that are capable of being updated, you should always design as such to accommodate the former rather than the latter?

View on HN

No? It's an argument for using TAI,because devices that use TAI do not need leap second updates - a clock running TAI that was started in 1970 and never updated will show the same time as a clock running TAI that's started today (or one that was started in 1970 and updated continually), whereas a clock running UTC that wasn't updated will show a different time from one that was updated.

For most timekeeping devices, the inherent drift and skew noise floor is above the leap seconds error.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com