> So why not "smear" the DST<=> ST transitions by having four half hour transitions, once each quarter?

Very easy answer: Because it's already painful twice a year, and that would be making it even worse.

That answer is similar to the one for questions like "why do we have wide time zones that are somewhat inaccurate, rather than setting every clock based on the exact position of that clock?".

▲

nerdsniper a day ago | parent [-]

I’d be okay with every day having a different # of seconds. That way we slowly adjust with no discontinuity, but the nominal start time of school/work stays the same.

While this feels would be a disaster for other reasons like: “How many seconds are in an hour?” -> “Depends, no one knows.” … that’s already the case with our existing leap seconds.

▲

zokier a day ago | parent [-]

> that’s already the case with our existing leap seconds.

Which we are also in the process of getting rid of.

▲

ben_w a day ago | parent [-]

News to me, but apparently so: https://www.bipm.org/en/-/resolution-cgpm-27-4

(This sounds like kicking the can down the road to me; making the maximum discrepancy a minute could take 50-100 years and then you need a leap-minute or equivalent).

	▲	ssl-3 a day ago \| parent [-]
		No. But the Earth has sped up a bit, so they're less necessary than at some times in the past. And we're on schedule to change them to be some kind of bigger, yet-undecided adjustment (perhaps a whole minute) before the year 2035 comes to a close. If we move to leap-minutes, the Earth will do whatever it does, and it is expected that we'll be able to run on atomic time for a period of decades or perhaps even a century before we need to make another adjustment like we've done with leap seconds in the past. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_second#Phase-out_and_futu... --- edit: Yeah, I see that your edit covered this adequately. No worries. :)