@avibryant @matasar Because it's only thinking in UTC?
-
-
Replying to @avibryant
@avibryant@attaboy Leap seconds were apparently first inserted in 1972, so IEEE would have known about them.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @matasar
@matasar@attaboy the New Jersey style in action. (And can't say I blame them).#worseisbetter1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @avibryant
@avibryant@matasar Sure enough, leap seconds aren't included. http://excerpent.com/q/75/ffc37feb44975049b7ba2e82168f1d …1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @avibryant
@avibryant@matasar It gets worse if you read the whole article. They originally didn't account for leap years properly.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @matasar
@matasar@avibryant I'll meet you at 1:59:59.9999 AM tonight to start the fire — should only take an hour or so, right?1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @attaboy
@attaboy@matasar@avibryant Y'all probably won't like seeing the javascript here http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/leapsecs/epochtime.html …2 replies 1 retweet 2 likes
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.