[CONTACT]

[ABOUT]

[POLICY]

bad design of Swatch internet

Found at: sdf.org:70/users/yargo/glog/t17564-swatchtime.txt

                       bad design of Swatch internet time

   Swatch internet time, measured in ".beats", was an idea for a common
   and practical way to define time in useful units independent of time
   zones. It never really took off.

   tomasino recently mentioned it in a [1]post which again got me thinking
   why I didn't like ".beats". There are two basic flaws with it, in my
   opinion:
    1. ".beats" are not based on UTC but on UTC+1, or even "Biel mean
       time" as the (IMHO) slightly megalomaniac Swatch PR guys decided to
       call it. As UTC is already the time base for most interesting stuff
       (nautics, telecom), it's totally stupid to not use it. For me, that
       was the killer.
    2. If already it was intended to be used all over the planet, one
       should have thought of the difficulty concerning the day: ".beats"
       only cover 24 hours, and therefore it's not clear which day is
       meant, if I tell somebody in the Pacific ocean I'd like to meet
       online next Tuesday @654. "Their" Tuesday or "mine"? One could
       easily have prevented this ambiguity by prepending ".beats" with
       the day of week or day of month also in UTC. "Next Tuesday @654"
       would then be written "2@654" if we set Sunday=0, Monday=1,
       Tuesday=2, etc. (Just noting day of week would keep it short by
       only adding one character to the string.)

   With these modifications, I'd immediately accept Swatch internet time
   and advertise it, and I'd even use it for my amateur radio logs and
   other private stuff, because time resolution of 1/1000 day = 86.4 sec
   (or about 1.4 min) is way sufficient for most interactions.

   I'll probably add the modified version to my CGI time script, if I may
   steal tomasino's idea! ;-)

References

   1. gopher://sdf.org/1/users/tomasino/phlog/20171004-strixy-goes-meta


AD: