
Time on Unix - todsacerdoti
https://venam.nixers.net/blog/unix/2020/05/02/time-on-unix.html
======
stjo
Btw nixers is a nice little forum. Check it out if you are into minimalism,
suckless software, macos/linux/bsds and such. Very cool community

~~~
mooreds
I tried to join but the 'are you a human' riddles flummoxed me.

~~~
LeoPanthera
Yeah, I did get one eventually, but only after some extensive Googling.

Although I did successfully register the whole experience completely put me
off from participating. I don't really want to be in a community with such
extreme gatekeeping.

~~~
subaru_shoe
sounds like sour grapes .

------
bogomipz
The author states:

>"The mean time recorded there was used as the one to derive your local civil
time as an offset from, called Greenwich Mean Time, or GMT for short. However,
it was not as precise as it could be and thus got replaced in 1967 by another
standard called Universal Coordinated Time, UTC.

UTC is a version of the Universal Time standard. In this standard we also find
UT1, that keeps track of Earth rotation angle using GPS satellites ..."

I was confused by this as my understanding is that the first GPS blocks were
the NAVSTAR system which were launched in 1978[1]. Or am I reading this
incorrectly and UT1 is a later version of the UTC standard?

[1]
[https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/heo/scan/communications/po...](https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/heo/scan/communications/policy/GPS_History.html)

~~~
venamresm__
Indeed it's a later standard part of the wider "Universal Time Standard". It
specifically tracks earth phase expressed as Universal Time UT1.

NB: UTC is part of the Universal Time Standard, it is not _the_ time standard.
I think from your comment you are mixing the two.

------
macintux
Impressive breadth and depth. I didn’t expect something that started out at
such a beginner level to end up that deep in the weeds.

~~~
venamresm__
Thank you very much, that was my goal to make it gradual so that anyone with
just a bit of understanding could get through and have an overview of the
topic.

I've read a lot on this topic and couldn't find a page that explained things
properly so I created one.

I hope if I've made typos, technical mistakes, or that my writing isn't clear
enough in some places that the online community can help with fixes so that
this can become a better resource.

------
abjKT26nO8
This font is gigantic. And the text is a bit too wide. It feels as if I had to
do a marathon from left to right on each line.

I wish the web didn't have the possibility of styling its content and would
only use standard options which would be customizable by users. E.g. as a
webdev, you wouldn't be able to set the font face beyond "serif", "sans-
serif", "monospace" and then everybody could just set those to what they like.
Similarly, there would be no "font-size". You'd have to use semantically
correct HTML tags and the user would choose the font size for these tags. I'm
tired of 99% pages being unreadable. Reader mode is a hack.

EDIT: To clarify, the text on this page renders on my 4k screen with 170%
scaling as ~31cm wide and each character is ~1cm tall.

And sure enough, the CSS responsible for this part contains "font-size:
22.4px;". That's beyond reasonable for normal body text.

~~~
venamresm__
I'm the blog's author. Can you advice on some CSS fixes, I'm not experiencing
what you're describing on my phone (Chrome and Firefox) nor my desktop (also
Chrome and Firefox). Could you also share a screenshot please.

~~~
abjKT26nO8
Screenshot: [https://i.imgur.com/MfEAvRp.png](https://i.imgur.com/MfEAvRp.png)

I see you used "width: 60%" to specify the width of the article text. That's
probably good for narrower screens, but on its own can have unpleasant effects
on wider ones. Consider adding "max-width: 39em" to mitigate it. You may
fiddle a bit with the exact value there to see what works for your website.

As to the text size, you used "font-size: 1.4em". I think that in this regard
it's best to rely on the defaults and set "font-size: 100%" in "html, body"
and then "font-size: 1rem" for the tag where the main text is contained.

~~~
shrimp_emoji
On a wide, 1440p monitor, with the browser window full-screen width, it looks
fine to me.

Smaller text would be harder to read. And it's not like the text is edge-to-
edge wide.

BUT [https://contrastrebellion.com/](https://contrastrebellion.com/)

~~~
abjKT26nO8
I just retried viewing this page after rebooting into Windows and it looks
completely different. The text is a lot smaller than on Linux. So Windows
handles HiDPI a lot differently, it seems. But my own website looks exactly
the same on Linux and Windows. I'm using a "reset.css" \--- maybe that's
what's at play here.

In any case, our impressions being different only prove my point about
standardized styling of webpages.

