[throw0101d]

> A leap minute every few centuries makes much more sense than a leap second every few years. We have until our great-great-grandchildren to prepare.

People can't get the regular changes of DST and February 29 correct, and you want them to get a one-off change right?

I'd rather 'inflict' change (semi-)regularly so people at least try to get things right and get some practice, as opposed to a Hail Mary pass/change in some distance future.

[zarzavat]

We already have rules that are much rarer and more impactful than leap minutes would be. For example on Feb 29th 2000 an entire extra day was inserted on a century, an event that only happens once every 400 years! It was a complete non-event and only time nerds remember that it happened.

In the case of a leap minute, the worst that can happen is that your clock is 1 minute out every couple of centuries. Doesn’t seem so bad and certainly much better than dealing with leap seconds every few years.

We don’t need to constantly rehearse for such an event, we can just do nothing and die without worrying about it.

[Gare]

It was a non-event because 2100 will actually be an "odd" one, divisible by four but not a leap year.

Every dumb implementation that looked at division by 4 got 2000 right.

[lmm]

> People can't get the regular changes of DST and February 29 correct, and you want them to get a one-off change right?

Leap seconds are already rare enough that people can't handle them properly. Every time one happens the bug fixes from the last one have been undone.