[zarzavat]

Not really. Adding leap seconds at the end of years is inferior because a year is a human-scale duration.

Planning something “next year” is human-scale. Planning something “next century” is not human-scale because I won’t be alive then.

If we use leap minutes then most people will not see one in their lifetime, compared to everyone seeing multiple leap seconds in their lifetime.

[ChrisSD]

But when that leap minute does eventually occur, it's going to cause havoc in all the systems that don't handle it. Which, let's face it, there are going to be a lot of. Either because they were never designed for it or else the relevant code paths were never actually tested.

[mminer237]

You could broadcast a leap minute with a decade to prepare for it and most software would still be developed, used, and die off in the 90 years in between. It's better for 15% of relevant software to have to worry about something so consequentially minor than 100%.

[scheme271]

That didn't work so well for y2k issues. Just this month there was an article about a woman that keeps getting id'ed as being 1 year old instead of 101 years old because of a y2k fix.