

It is 5:40:79 Simple Universal Time - change your time thinking now - telmich
http://telmich.github.io/sut/

======
gbraad
Swatch Internet Time (or Beat) all over again:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swatch_Internet_Time](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swatch_Internet_Time)

This idea was simple to understand, but didn't catch on!

~~~
telmich
You are right. I actually like that approach as well, but that system had at
least two major drawbacks:

\- being pushed like a marketing thingy for a specific company \- not
resembling hours/minutes

I guess the latter point was crucial for it not being adapted. Or it was also
too early (early internet time)

~~~
drdaeman
Not resembling traditional time notation is good thing IMHO, as one can't even
accidentally confuse local time with non-local one.

------
garethadams
Adopting metric time, while a neat idea, would probably have a lot of
consequences for all the SI units derived[1] from the current standard
'second', no?

On an unrelated note, in standard gravity (1𝘨) a pendulum with length 1m will
complete half an oscillation in fractionally more than 1s (~1.006s), an
annoyingly close relationship for one that's not supposed to correlate
exactly.

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI_derived_unit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI_derived_unit)

~~~
telmich
You are right, you'd have to use a new second definition. That's why I am
referring to "simple seconds" (you can debate the name...) in the article.

I guess it's easy to find another molecule/atom to relate the time to - there
are many around.

------
powatom
This solves nothing - person X still has to take into consideration the daily
routine of person Y on the other side of the planet. Announcing that you're
disregarding time-zones does not have the effect of making time-zones
irrelevant.

Something like SUT is only really suitable for things which are completely
independent of human behaviour (i.e scheduling automated tasks for regular
intervals).

~~~
drdaeman
Whenever one uses universal time or local time they still have to calculate
(or look up some table) before they can consider whenever it's day or night in
some unfamiliar remote place.

Universal time system solves the problem of discussing time. It works when
you're talking to a person, negotiating time of some event - you can both be
sure that you use same notion of time.

It's especially good if notation radically differs from usual HH:MM:SS (like
swatch @BBBB), as one can accidentally misassociate time systems in their
head.

~~~
powatom
But the world still spins regardless of how you end up talking about time -
you will still need to figure out the human behaviour at the specific location
on earth at that specific time. It is useless to schedule a conference call
when the participants are all in bed. SUT does not solve this problem - people
will still need to take into account the fact that night and day still exist
and most people work during daylight hours.

~~~
drdaeman
You still have to negotiate when one's available. I.e. ask and tell time
values - there's no other way of figuring out others' schedules.

And this is easier when you don't have to do any calculations on those values.
This is the part which SUT (and alike) solves.

~~~
powatom
It solves a problem which does not exist - people organise things based on an
agreed timezone already. The pain of transitioning to SUT is not worth the
(debatable) gains.

~~~
telmich
Actually I don't agree with you - I think if humans got used to SUT, they can
(in their own time!) easily recognise the shifts around the globe. I.e. 2:00
SUT is the start of the day in Europe, 5:00 SUT is start of the day in US and
7:00 SUT in Asia.

I believe that due to talking about the same time, people can more easy
remember the other times.

Compared to time zones, which are based on learning them by heart without a
relation to your current time zone (only relates to UTC and your time zone to
UTC again -> 2 calculations).

~~~
powatom
Yes, but you're missing the point - people talk about the time of day, almost
universally in relation to the standard 9-5 working pattern that most of the
industrialised world follows.

What does 'this morning' mean in SUT? 'This evening'? 'I'll speak to you
tomorrow'?

------
cjg
It doesn't solve the stated aim of having to work out a good time to call
someone in a different part of the world. They have the same time (no
timezones), but what time of day is OK to call them? They don't work 9-5 they
work 3-11.

But if you think this idea is good, let's agree on a worldwide standard for
electrical outlets while we are at it? You've got about as much chance of that
proposal succeeding.

~~~
DanielStraight
Right. The problem is that there are _two_ fundamental reasons for dealing
with time across the globe, and their solutions are generally mutually
exclusive.

Reason 1 is synchronization. Knowing if an event happens in place X at time T
when that happens in place Y. This is what universal time simplifies.

But universal time messes up the other reason for dealing with time across the
globe, which is knowing what part of the day it is in other places.

While timezone conversion pretty readily allows synchronization across the
globe, universal time doesn't have a readily-available solution for knowing
what's going on in New Zealand right now. (It's 2:30 AM there, so probably not
a whole lot, but you knew that as soon as I said 2:30 AM, which is the whole
point.) You are still going to need to have some way to say what the current
time _means_ in other places. This is automatic right now. Two in the morning
means the same thing everywhere. A universal time doesn't. So you'd have to
say something like, "It's currently time T, which in New Zealand is several
hours before sunrise." So you're basically coming up with ad-hoc local times
anyway.

------
cabirum
Won't using UTC globally be enough?

Converting to decimal time will render most current time-aware devices
obsolete, from wrist watches to microwaves to airport terminal software.

Also, scientific calculations rely on metric time[1], and need not to deal
with minutes/hours.

[1]:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_time](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_time)

~~~
telmich
The problem is that you cannot modify people's behaviour by pointing them to
something existing:

harry: "hey, utc would be great, let's drop CEST." joana: "UTC was designed
for something else ... <more offtopic arguments"

whereas with SUT, you have the chance to change behaviour:

harry: "There's a new time format, SUT. If we adapt to it, the world will
become much simpler." joana: "Wow, so cool. Let's do that!"

~~~
manicdee
And then you keep a list of work hours in each friend's contact card. So Sally
is in New York, her work hours are 14:00–22:00. Frank is in Amsterdam, so his
work hours are 09:00–17:00.

It is exactly the same as UTC, just using decimal. So just use UTC, or the
time zone support in your calendaring software.

------
mmcconnell1618
I'm not sure why the proposal uses "simple seconds", "simple hours" etc. We
didn't call them "metric inches" or "metric yards" but rather centimeters and
meters. A new naming system will be important otherwise some people are going
to be really peeved to learn their "8 hour work day" is a lot longer now.

~~~
telmich
"Simple" is just the reference to the name - in my opinion the name of the new
hours/minutes/seconds does not really matter - it just needs to have
hours/minutes/seconds in their name and needs to be distinguishable from the
current scheme.

------
pwr
Obligatory xkcd: [http://xkcd.com/927/](http://xkcd.com/927/)

------
elros
I think that it is a bad idea because these measurements are not duodecimal by
accident.

They are quantities and notions that we use every day, extremely frequently,
and the mathematical properties of duodecimal bases versus decimal are useful
in this context. I think this is why these things kinda evolve towards
different bases.

------
drinchev
I can't get the logic here. Why this switch will be helpful? Does this mean :
If I live in Europe (e.g.) and the sunrise is at 3 SUT, I'll have to go to
work at around 4 SUT, but in the states the sunrise is at 7 SUT and people
will go to work at 8 SUT?

~~~
Pitarou
> Why this switch will be helpful?

I was raised in Britain towards the end of the transition from imperial to
metric units. I would NOT go back.

So it worked for yardsticks. Why not clocks?

> If I live in Europe (e.g.) and the sunrise is at 3 SUT ...

You're catching on. It's simpler than Daylight Saving Time, don't you think?

~~~
drinchev
From "Motivation" [1]

> To place a call, you have to find out

> in which time zone the target person is > how much offset to UTC this
> particular time zone has > remember the delta from my time zone to UTC >
> create the delta from both time zones > find a good time for a call > This
> is quite cumbersome and wastes a lot of energy world wide, every day.

So now I will not have to find the timezone, but I'll have to take a look at
something like "SUT Sunrise World Map" and figure out which part of the day-
night cycle is the destination.

I agree, this will help me when I travel from Europe to the States - since I
will not need to adjust my mind and freak out when I see my watch, but when I
go there I'll have to adapt to something else, different than timezone.

P.S. I like the idea of 1 min = 100 seconds, My programmer's background and
SUT will give me something like 10 megaseconds = 1 hour, which is nice.

[1]
[http://www.nico.schottelius.org/docs/sut/](http://www.nico.schottelius.org/docs/sut/)

------
Scene_Cast2
Here's my (hopefully unique) take on this. A part of what makes analog watches
beautiful is the number of hours (12) - hexagons (6 segments) and hexagon-like
structures are aesthetically pleasing.

With SUT and its 10 hour system, clocks and watches would start looking / be
reminiscent of car wheels (most car wheels are 5 symmetrical segments [1]).

My knee-jerk reaction is that I'm not willing to give up hundreds of years of
watch face refinement for easy math conversions.

[1]
[https://www.google.ca/search?q=car+wheel&tbm=isch](https://www.google.ca/search?q=car+wheel&tbm=isch)

~~~
telmich
You can always use a circle (as with current watches) and just add the number
of hours per day (does not matter if it is 12 or 10).

You could probably quite easy relabel analog clocks to use SUT, btw...

~~~
Scene_Cast2
Not quite what I meant. Lots of watch faces play on the fact that 12 is
divisible by 2, 3, 4, and 6. For example, take this [1] Ulysse Nardin watch.
It has six nice "hexa"-markings (a common theme among watches). Some other
watches go for the cross-hair (division by 4). Neither one of the styles would
be possible with the 10 hour system.

Note: those watches do not reflect my personal taste, they were just the
easiest to find.

[1] [http://www.ulysse-nardin.ch/ulysse-nardin-
webseite/uploadfil...](http://www.ulysse-nardin.ch/ulysse-nardin-
webseite/uploadfiles/4d551f00-cda0-4bd3-97df-bb43fe6ed11b.jpg)

[2]
[http://www.tissot.ch/imageslib/cache/2011/png/image225png_T0...](http://www.tissot.ch/imageslib/cache/2011/png/image225png_T002_520_17_051_01_png.png)

------
lucb1e
There are so many proposals for a different, better time system. This one is
actually identical to my proposal for a change to O'Harean time (it's based on
20 hours, but for no especially good reason; I suggested changing it to 10).
And I too invented my own kind of date/timestamp, which is somewhere midway
between readable for humans and computers:
[https://lucb1e.com/rp/othertimes/lucb1e-time.php](https://lucb1e.com/rp/othertimes/lucb1e-time.php)

~~~
telmich
Thanks for the pointer! It's always great to read about other ideas. Maybe you
can explain how your proposal would make the world more simple?

~~~
lucb1e
Well unix timestamps are not quite readable for humans, this is a bit better.
It lacks a system of weeks though, so I guess it's only a midway solution, not
great for human usability either. And it's not so much of a system as it's an
idea.

------
syncerr
Can someone explain the importance of local times needing to be the same? Who
cares if I go to work at 3, while you start at 5. Do we think it will force a
creep of the work day's starting and stopping time? Some of us already stay up
(or get up) to deal with other parts of the world. Is it that we need to
compare our bedtimes with others?

I actually wouldn't mind this. None of our relatives live in the same area as
us and anything that requires coordination (e.g., planning to video-chat),
requires specifying a time zone.

~~~
bliker
Major problem would be counting days. You know that 3 nights equal three days.
But if day changes during your afternoon nap, that can lead to some unexpected
complications. Eg the natural day would be out of sync with official day.

~~~
telmich
That's actually only correct if you think locally - your night does not
actually match with your neighbour's timezone night.

but yes, it means some people will sleep during "day" while some will sleep
during "night". It may be appropriate to think about their definitions when
using SUT as time base.

------
hawleyal
Shouldn't they use a single unit and metric prefixes, instead of hours,
minutes seconds?

For instance, meters are always meters. Whether millimeters, centimeters,
decimeters, meters, kilometers, et al.

SUT proposes:

\- A day has 10 hours

\- An hour has 100 minutes

\- A minutes has 100 seconds

Instead, using using hour as the single unit.

1 day = 10 hours

1 hour = .1 day = 100 minutes = 100 centihours

1 minute = .01 hour = 1 centihour

1 second = .01 minute = .01 centihour = .0001 hour = 100 microhours

------
lysium
I don't think SUT fits its own motivation: instead of comparing time zones
(for which numerous apps already exist), I have to compare local working times
(for which no apps exist ;-).

Further, having seconds, minutes as multiples of 10 only makes very few things
easier. Or when was the last time you had to find out how many hours are in
1234567 seconds? Did you have to do that more often than finding out how many
months are in 1234567 hours?

Last, it totally ignores the concept of leap seconds.

------
joshuaheard
This is a great idea. The French tried this after the Revolution. They also
came up with a "metric" calendar: 12 months of 3 weeks of 10 days, with the
extra 5 days per year (6 on leap years) being a holiday. The holiday was taken
at the end of the year. Sort of like between Christmas and New Years now.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Republican_Calendar](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Republican_Calendar)

~~~
telmich
It seems the French have more than just good wine to offer!

------
scrumper
The French tried something similar after the revolution (Decimal Time). It
didn't catch on either.

It's essentially pointless. Yes, it's a bit easier to represent times and
handle them differently (5:50 = 5.5h = 550m) but it's not that hard with
standard time either, as evidenced by the fact that I and everyone else in the
world managed to learn to tell the time about the same time we figured out how
to tie our shoelaces.

~~~
yread
Actually telling the time to somebody else can be even more consuming. Some
languages say half past 4, some half to 5, some even say "quarter to 5" when
it's 16:15 and "three quarters to 5" when it's 16:45. In some languages you
can say stuff like "3 minutes before 3 quarters to 5" for 16:42. People just
like to make things interesting, I guess.

</OT>

~~~
telmich
I guess these cultural differences will continue to exist - you even have 3
different versions for 1645 in German language.

I don't think this is a problem, as cultural differences are important to
exist, as they resemble local differences.

------
Xephyrous
The nomenclature invites unnecessary confusion, as the terms are all already
used ("How many simple seconds are in an _actual_ second?").

Why not use metric prefixes on a day to come up with the names? This requires
no new definitions, just a new application of existing terminology.

simple hour = deciday

simple minute = milliday

simple second = 10 microdays

------
svckr
If I travel at a constant speed of 100 km/h (~62mph), it takes me one hour to
travel 100km (~62 miles). This is not even math.

Do you want me to

a) convert between km/h and km/"simple h"

or

b) replace all tachometers, speed-limit signs and laws?

or

c) define "simple km" to fit?

------
telmich
Oh, it's 5:98:67 now - have to leave work before 6 SUT today, though usually
leaving at 6:30.

When do you usually leave work in SUT?

------
drewjoh
Just getting rid of DST would solve a lot of what this is trying to
accomplish.

~~~
telmich
I agree - that was one of the initial things we were discussing when
developing SUT.

------
ceautery
This is much cooler than Joseph Franklin's Metric Leisure Week proposal.

------
peapicker
My computer just went from 3 GHz to ~2.6 Ghz... This may not fly... ;)

