Why UTC is used as the acronym for Coordinated Universal Time(nist.gov)
nist.gov
Why UTC is used as the acronym for Coordinated Universal Time
https://www.nist.gov/pml/time-and-frequency-division/nist-time-frequently-asked-questions-faq#cut
160 comments
One of my favorite useless facts is that the Prime Meridian of Mars was defined and that definition was universally accepted decades before there was agreement on where to put Earth's Prime Meridian. Goes to show how much easier it is to get things done when you don't have to worry about international pissing contests and people's preexisting biases.
Scott Manly goes into the meridians of the planets, moons, and other stuff a bit more here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9oMxRo5uVM
Like time, mapping ends up being relative in the end.
As we reach out into the stars, we're going to need a better system for mapping than the one we have now. Should be interesting.
Like time, mapping ends up being relative in the end.
As we reach out into the stars, we're going to need a better system for mapping than the one we have now. Should be interesting.
Difference between GMT and UTC is that GMT is region specific and has daylight saving time (UTC +1). But UTC is region independent.
Where did you get this idea, not to mention the confidence to repeat it authoritatively? It's the opposite of correct: not only is this NOT true (GMT does NOT have daylight savings time or spring forward/fall back at any point during the year) but there are other differences between GMT and UTC as well.
The difference is in fraction of seconds, from the parent link:
> The term GMT is now more commonly used to refer to the time zone at the prime meridian (0° longitude), in which case it is being used as a local representation of Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) and not UT1. However, UTC is adjusted with leap seconds to always be within less than one second of UT1, so either use of GMT can be considered equivalent to Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) when fractions of a second are not important.
> The term GMT is now more commonly used to refer to the time zone at the prime meridian (0° longitude), in which case it is being used as a local representation of Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) and not UT1. However, UTC is adjusted with leap seconds to always be within less than one second of UT1, so either use of GMT can be considered equivalent to Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) when fractions of a second are not important.
No - that’s incorrect. From a civil time
perspective, the UK keeps to GMT during the winter but BST during the summer.
The difference (such as it is) is that GMT is a time zone and UTC is technically not: it is a time standard.
The difference (such as it is) is that GMT is a time zone and UTC is technically not: it is a time standard.
It's clear I didn't communicate this properly but that was my point – UTC is not a time zone like GMT.
And I don't know the name of British DST (I used the american name), so yeah, bad wording but this was essentially what I was trying to communicate.
And I don't know the name of British DST (I used the american name), so yeah, bad wording but this was essentially what I was trying to communicate.
Never use software that thinks in terms of lists of +/- GMT zones and says things like "GMT: Ireland, United Kingdom; Iceland". You don't live in a "GMT Time Zone" and nobody you know has any idea what this means.
Use software which is driven by cities and uses the Olson database, Europe/London, Europe/Dublin and so on. This is unambiguous which means things will go wrong a lot less often.
You probably live in a city, and if you don't live in a city you there's a big one near you. You know what time it is there. Everybody knows what time it is there. If you're participating in an event where some people are far away they can do any number of things to find out when "14:00 Dublin time" is exactly and get it correct. They can even just call somebody in Dublin and ask. No confusion about "Um, GMT. I think? Is the timezone GMT? Or UTC? Or does it change?"
Use software which is driven by cities and uses the Olson database, Europe/London, Europe/Dublin and so on. This is unambiguous which means things will go wrong a lot less often.
You probably live in a city, and if you don't live in a city you there's a big one near you. You know what time it is there. Everybody knows what time it is there. If you're participating in an event where some people are far away they can do any number of things to find out when "14:00 Dublin time" is exactly and get it correct. They can even just call somebody in Dublin and ask. No confusion about "Um, GMT. I think? Is the timezone GMT? Or UTC? Or does it change?"
This answer misses how several different universal times already existed at the time, which use abbreviations UT0, UT1, etc. UTC was a logical abbreviation for this one, considering it follows the same style, and the desire to find a good compromise between the French and the English speakers.
FWIW, those are still in use. Here's the (rather interesting) relationship:
* UT1 is really not a time, but an angular measurement - it measures the rotation of the earth. In UT1, a day (= 1 rotation) has 86400 seconds (= 1 rotation), but those seconds are not SI seconds.
* TAI is time since some fixed epoch, in SI seconds. In TAI, a day doesn't really exist as a primitive concept, but a day (=1 rotation) has a variable number of seconds, and those seconds are SI seconds. TAI and UT1 diverge over time, continuously (due to earth's rotational speed variations).
* UTC is sort of an amalgamation of them: it uses SI seconds (like TAI), but occasionally jumps a second to keep close to UT1. In UTC, a day has 86400 seconds, or 86399 or 86401, and those seconds are SI seconds. UTC and TAI diverge, and their difference is piecewise constant with occasional jumps. UTC and UT1 diverge, but at most a second continuously, and then with occasional jumps come together again.
* UT1 is really not a time, but an angular measurement - it measures the rotation of the earth. In UT1, a day (= 1 rotation) has 86400 seconds (= 1 rotation), but those seconds are not SI seconds.
* TAI is time since some fixed epoch, in SI seconds. In TAI, a day doesn't really exist as a primitive concept, but a day (=1 rotation) has a variable number of seconds, and those seconds are SI seconds. TAI and UT1 diverge over time, continuously (due to earth's rotational speed variations).
* UTC is sort of an amalgamation of them: it uses SI seconds (like TAI), but occasionally jumps a second to keep close to UT1. In UTC, a day has 86400 seconds, or 86399 or 86401, and those seconds are SI seconds. UTC and TAI diverge, and their difference is piecewise constant with occasional jumps. UTC and UT1 diverge, but at most a second continuously, and then with occasional jumps come together again.
This nicely recapitulates phylogeny: in the origin of Babylonian timekeeping (we all now use a system based on that), hours were not of a fixed length; there were twelve of them between dawn and dusk and twelve more between dusk and dawn.
Minutes (as can be see from their clearly Latin name, "tiny") and the second division of them (seconds) are brand new and AFAIK have always been of fixed length, a consequence of mechanical timekeeping.
Minutes (as can be see from their clearly Latin name, "tiny") and the second division of them (seconds) are brand new and AFAIK have always been of fixed length, a consequence of mechanical timekeeping.
I wonder why a Latin name wasn’t appropriate.
Interestingly that's the approach Switzerland took by adopting "CH" as its country code/abbreviation: Confoederatio Helvetica in Latin.
This was to avoid giving the appearance of favoring any of its four official languages (It would otherwise be "SE" in German, "CS" in French/Italian/Romanish).
This was to avoid giving the appearance of favoring any of its four official languages (It would otherwise be "SE" in German, "CS" in French/Italian/Romanish).
India's official language is English. I recall a journalist asking an Indian official isn't that a sign of British oppression? The official replied that India is home to many native languages, and to avoid favoritism a foreign language was chosen, and since the bureaucracy was already familiar with English that was the logical choice.
Well, English is co-official with Hindi. Originally, Hindi was even supposed to be the only official language at a national level (states can have their own official languages). The Indian Constitution of 1950 declared Hindi as the sole official language, with English being used only temporarily for a 15-year transitional period. A number of politicians who pushed for this clause did see phasing out English as part of the decolonization process.
But it's true that English usage alongside Hindi as co-official has been extended indefinitely due to non-Hindi-speaking regions preferring to use English over Hindi when dealing with the central government. The Constitution was amended in 1967 to remove the phase-out period, partly in response to some riots: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Hindi_agitations_of_Tamil...
But it's true that English usage alongside Hindi as co-official has been extended indefinitely due to non-Hindi-speaking regions preferring to use English over Hindi when dealing with the central government. The Constitution was amended in 1967 to remove the phase-out period, partly in response to some riots: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Hindi_agitations_of_Tamil...
Thanks for sharing, that's very interesting. Does that decision have anything to do with Switzerland's reputation for neutrality?
My understanding of Swiss neutrality (simplistic and very poor) is that the swiss mercenaries were too good and after they were finally defeated a ban on fielding mercenary companies was enforced and this lead naturally to the neutral stance Switzerland takes today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_mercenaries
Except the pope, being the pope got to keep his.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_mercenaries
Except the pope, being the pope got to keep his.
It's not a reputation but an actual policy. It's hard to untangle but the policy has more to being surrounded by other states (no ocean) and having big walls around it already, and being too small for geopolitical strength.
The country was last invaded in the napoleonic wars.
The country was last invaded in the napoleonic wars.
I think the real reason was because we were confident about surpassing Rome and our own modern empires by the 1970s.
There was a certain ammount of "looking back to the peaks and we are but a shadow of the greats" meme well beyond they realized they surpassdd the Roman Empire with the use of the fallen in the west Roman empire and the use of Latin (amusingly paying no regards to the Eastern Roman empire aka Byzantium).
Now it is used for taxonomies still but the real reason for that is "Do you want to rename every system of classification and have to deal with two systems and names for thousands instead and avoid confusion in a vast body of work?". A resounding no and shudder would be the answer even if we had an undeniably "better" universal language for the purpose that didn't have any "politics" to it.
There was a certain ammount of "looking back to the peaks and we are but a shadow of the greats" meme well beyond they realized they surpassdd the Roman Empire with the use of the fallen in the west Roman empire and the use of Latin (amusingly paying no regards to the Eastern Roman empire aka Byzantium).
Now it is used for taxonomies still but the real reason for that is "Do you want to rename every system of classification and have to deal with two systems and names for thousands instead and avoid confusion in a vast body of work?". A resounding no and shudder would be the answer even if we had an undeniably "better" universal language for the purpose that didn't have any "politics" to it.
> A resounding no and shudder would be the answer even if we had an undeniably "better" universal language for the purpose that didn't have any "politics" to it.
So not JavaScript?
So not JavaScript?
I mean, it basically is. The English, French, and Latin words are all very similar. I'm not going to embarrass myself with improper Latin declensions, but suffice it to say that "UTC" still works as a compromise initialism if you want to say it in Latin as well.
Latin word order is flexible enough for about anything. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_word_order:
”Latin word order is relatively free. Subject, Object, and Verb can come in any order; adjectives can go before or after their noun; a genitive such as hostium "of the enemy" can also be placed before or after its noun. A common feature of Latin is hyperbaton, in which a phrase is split up by other words, e.g. Sextus est Tarquinius "it is Sextus Tarquinius"”
Examples of adjective-noun order at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_word_order#Adjective_pos...
”Latin word order is relatively free. Subject, Object, and Verb can come in any order; adjectives can go before or after their noun; a genitive such as hostium "of the enemy" can also be placed before or after its noun. A common feature of Latin is hyperbaton, in which a phrase is split up by other words, e.g. Sextus est Tarquinius "it is Sextus Tarquinius"”
Examples of adjective-noun order at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_word_order#Adjective_pos...
In French, most adjectives follow the noun they describe (while adjectives precede nouns in English), so the primary compromise is not naming per se, but specifically abbreviating.
It’s a good compromise and a compromise good.
It’s a good compromise and a compromise good.
Not exactly. In French, adjectives can both precede or follow the noun. It's stylistic more than grammatical in many cases, and depends on how the sentence is constructed. Nuances (e.g. proper versus figurative meaning) can be elegantly conveyed by switching the adjective.
Examples:
"Un homme grand" means 'a tall man', but "un grand homme" is more commonly 'a great man' (although it could also mean tall, depending on context or sophistication).
"Une voiture bleue" is the only correct way to say 'a blue car' ("une bleue voiture" would be grammatically wrong).
"Un petit homme noir" ('a short black man') is also correct, but "un noir homme petit" is absolutely wrong, as any other variation...
Generally, when both orders are allowed, emphasis is put on whichever comes first —the noun or its adjectives. Unless the sentence ends there, in which case the last word obviously resonates more.
Don't ask me why... It's logically as weird to me as it may seem to you. I only know from practice (like most French people I suspect) and I'm generally bad at explaining grammar (again like most, for it's really complicated). There's probably some rule somewhere about that, with three dozen exceptions, as usual in French.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Examples:
"Un homme grand" means 'a tall man', but "un grand homme" is more commonly 'a great man' (although it could also mean tall, depending on context or sophistication).
"Une voiture bleue" is the only correct way to say 'a blue car' ("une bleue voiture" would be grammatically wrong).
"Un petit homme noir" ('a short black man') is also correct, but "un noir homme petit" is absolutely wrong, as any other variation...
Generally, when both orders are allowed, emphasis is put on whichever comes first —the noun or its adjectives. Unless the sentence ends there, in which case the last word obviously resonates more.
Don't ask me why... It's logically as weird to me as it may seem to you. I only know from practice (like most French people I suspect) and I'm generally bad at explaining grammar (again like most, for it's really complicated). There's probably some rule somewhere about that, with three dozen exceptions, as usual in French.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
As a native French speaker who knows how to do that without knowing the rule, an American friend once told me how they remember where to put the adjective: B.A.G.S.
Most adjectives dealing with the following will precede the noun: - Beauty - Age - Goodness - Size
It's not always correct but it's a good start...
Most adjectives dealing with the following will precede the noun: - Beauty - Age - Goodness - Size
It's not always correct but it's a good start...
Reminds me of this tweet, essentially doing the same for English: https://twitter.com/MattAndersonNYT/status/77200275722200268...
I love it, it seems to work quite well!
Did you ask L’Académie française?
They know everything. Just ask them.
They know everything. Just ask them.
Ha, you made me curious. Do you think they would actually reply to emails?! — though it would probably be faster to Google for a good manual or teacher's blog.
Btw more than "knowing", it's the official institution that officially decides on linguistic rules and their evolution, for the French language in France. It's called "prescriptivism" (higher authority decides what's right and what's not, period) as opposed to "descriptivism" (such as the American English language, for which nobody gets to make these calls, and dictionaries merely follow usages by people).
Btw more than "knowing", it's the official institution that officially decides on linguistic rules and their evolution, for the French language in France. It's called "prescriptivism" (higher authority decides what's right and what's not, period) as opposed to "descriptivism" (such as the American English language, for which nobody gets to make these calls, and dictionaries merely follow usages by people).
Maybe because not that many (American) people learn Latin anymore.
I took two years of Latin in high school. I still remember the basics and it has more or less served me well. I think it made learning Spanish, which I also took in high school and college, easier.
"Puella in silva est" - "the girl is in the forest" was one of the first exercises that I remember to this day ;-p
"Puella in silva est" - "the girl is in the forest" was one of the first exercises that I remember to this day ;-p
"Le singe est dans l'arbre"
Eddie Izzard, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1sQkEfAdfY&gl=GB
I took latin too, for seven years. I finally passed with a 7 - one better than an "F" (for "fail").
Eddie Izzard, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1sQkEfAdfY&gl=GB
I took latin too, for seven years. I finally passed with a 7 - one better than an "F" (for "fail").
Having memorized the Lord's prayer in Latin is a fun party trick in some circles too :-)
They really ought to, when possible. I can't count the number of times I've encountered a new word that I could trace back to a basic Latin root. I feel like it gives you a good foundation for any romance language and goes hand in hand with the history of western civilization.
Latin is indeed still taught in elite private schools across the country. But let's be realistic: we'll never, EVER see a widespread push to get Latin into American education.
My regional public high school offered four years of it; I don't think it's that rare.
It's great for plants and animals when you want to know its official name and not the dozens of names many dozens of countries use.
That's the point, no? (No preference to a given nation)
Well, my comment was more eluding to the fact that, until very recently, many Americans learned Latin as part of their primary school education. It was requisite knowledge for university.
I think you mean "alluding". Eluding means avoiding.
(Secondary school, presumably)
This has not been true in America since at least before WWII and the GI Bill.
Latin was never a part of the standard primary school curriculum.
Latin was never a part of the standard primary school curriculum.
I was talking specifically about pre-WWII. My depression-era grand-parents learned it in school.
70+ years ago is not "very recent" when talking about schooling. Public schooling has only been widely available in the US for less than 150 years and only widely mandated for children in the last 100.
Conspiracy theorists would have a fun time with an official language of the Vatican being selected for the purpose of anything as basic and universal as time itself, even if just for a label.
[deleted]
It might as well be the acronym for a Latin name, "Universalis Tempus Coordinatus" or something like that...
It is the same reason as why the International Organization for Standardization is abbreviated ISO.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Organization_for...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Organization_for...
Very Baader-Meinhof! I think I heard about this in a recent Only Connect or QI episode (?). I wonder what the overlap of viewers is between those shows and HN.
In German "Internationale Standardisierungs-Organisation" could've been chosen to fit ISO, but they went with "Internationale Organisation für Normung" instead.
Except that that hyphen does not make much sense here, if you wanted to write it you'd pick Standardisierungsorganisation instead which gives you a very long word and matching that to ISO is just odd.
In official government speech words don't tend to get that long, instead they get split into multiple ("Bundesministerium der Finanzen" instead of "Bundesfinanzministerium").
In official government speech words don't tend to get that long, instead they get split into multiple ("Bundesministerium der Finanzen" instead of "Bundesfinanzministerium").
That and abbreviations in German were generally not initialisms. It'd be InterStanOrg or something weird like that.
An international body (which included multiple organizations) who didn't want to favor any particular language. We could use more work and thinking like that these days.
Except it still favours languages that use the same initial letters for universal, time and coordinated.
Don't know why it's such a big deal to favour one language for an abbreviation and let others just deal with it. We dirty foreigners also have FM radios, hailing from the country of US(A) in the year 2019 AD (the era that follows BC).
Don't know why it's such a big deal to favour one language for an abbreviation and let others just deal with it. We dirty foreigners also have FM radios, hailing from the country of US(A) in the year 2019 AD (the era that follows BC).
FM was created in America and shared with the world. UTC was coined by an international group. In my experience if French speakers are happy with your choice of non-French wording then you should take it while you can.
Reminds me of how French-speaking jurisdictions insist on using a .gouv TLD instead of .gov, almost as if they have to remind you're abbreviating a French word, even though the shorter one is also a valid abbreviation of their language's word.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.gov#International_equivalents
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.gov#International_equivalents
France has a .gouv.fr second-level domain but it's not a TLD, and I don't see any reason why it should be .gov.fr instead (.gov is reserved for the US government). France speaks French and the visitors to these sites speak French as well, why not use French names?
Notice all the other (non-US) countries in the list using .gov.<two letter country code>? There's nothing stopping them from using .gov.fr, just like Ireland uses .gov.ie.
>France speaks French and the visitors to these sites speak French as well, why not use French names?
.gov is no less of a "French name" than .gouv. They're both (natural) abbreviations of "government" and "gouvernement", as they keep the same letters in the same order and form a sound that would naturally be recognizable as a contraction of "government/gouvernement".
It would be like if the US were the only English-speaking country to use .orgz instead of .org on the basis that "Hey, we have to use the z in the abbreviation to show that we're not contracting it from 'organisation' like those Brits." It's a remarkably petty way to distinguish the abbreviation your country is using.
>France speaks French and the visitors to these sites speak French as well, why not use French names?
.gov is no less of a "French name" than .gouv. They're both (natural) abbreviations of "government" and "gouvernement", as they keep the same letters in the same order and form a sound that would naturally be recognizable as a contraction of "government/gouvernement".
It would be like if the US were the only English-speaking country to use .orgz instead of .org on the basis that "Hey, we have to use the z in the abbreviation to show that we're not contracting it from 'organisation' like those Brits." It's a remarkably petty way to distinguish the abbreviation your country is using.
No, the abbreviation of "gouvernement" cannot be "gov" in French because it doesn't have the same pronunciation. It can only be "gouv" as those two vowels cannot be separated for abbreviations in French. It could be "gou" although it sounds a bit weird.
Also, what the other countries do doesn't matter much, because.gouv.fr is for websites for French citizens, not Irish or Australian citizens.
The thing is, you put yourself from an English speaking perspective, but France doesn't. English isn't a reference from the point of view of France, so there is no reason not to use French terms.
France also uses .asso.fr instead of .org, for example.
Also, what the other countries do doesn't matter much, because.gouv.fr is for websites for French citizens, not Irish or Australian citizens.
The thing is, you put yourself from an English speaking perspective, but France doesn't. English isn't a reference from the point of view of France, so there is no reason not to use French terms.
France also uses .asso.fr instead of .org, for example.
>No, the abbreviation of "gouvernement" cannot be "gov" in French because it doesn't have the same pronunciation. It can only be "gouv" as those two vowels cannot be separated for abbreviations in French. It could be "gou" although it sounds a bit weird.
There’s no general rule that an abbreviation has to keep all letters; that’s what makes it an abbreviation. Nor do such contractions need to keep the same pronunciation as the corresponding parts: even the .com TLD is pronounced differently from the (unstressed) first syllable of “commercial” which it is a contraction of, “even though” it would sound weird to pronounce it like that syllable (as “come”).
French isn’t any different about allowing abbreviations to change the pronunciation: the “el” in courriel is pronounced differently from the él in courrier électronique that it corresponds to. And the French language authority endorsed that.
Where are you getting this rule that implies gouvernement can’t contract to gov, merely because it would look like it should sound different? It seems like that constraint is entirely made up, and not even adhered to in French, so I don’t see how it’s somehow confusing from a French perspective.
The only explanation is that it’s deliberately trying to be different.
>France also uses .asso.fr instead of .org, for example.
Which is also despite French having the word organisation already.
There’s no general rule that an abbreviation has to keep all letters; that’s what makes it an abbreviation. Nor do such contractions need to keep the same pronunciation as the corresponding parts: even the .com TLD is pronounced differently from the (unstressed) first syllable of “commercial” which it is a contraction of, “even though” it would sound weird to pronounce it like that syllable (as “come”).
French isn’t any different about allowing abbreviations to change the pronunciation: the “el” in courriel is pronounced differently from the él in courrier électronique that it corresponds to. And the French language authority endorsed that.
Where are you getting this rule that implies gouvernement can’t contract to gov, merely because it would look like it should sound different? It seems like that constraint is entirely made up, and not even adhered to in French, so I don’t see how it’s somehow confusing from a French perspective.
The only explanation is that it’s deliberately trying to be different.
>France also uses .asso.fr instead of .org, for example.
Which is also despite French having the word organisation already.
> notice all the other (non-US) countries in the list using .gov.<two letter country code>?
no, Spanish speaking countries use "gob"
no, Spanish speaking countries use "gob"
Sorry, most. The point stands. And Spanish legitimately does not have a v in its word for government. French does, and only adds the u to signal difference, equally as absurd as leaving the z in your abbreviation of organization to indicate which variant of English you’re using.
> one is also a valid abbreviation of their language's word.
No, you can't abbreviate "ou" with "o", it's a different sound. Similarly in English, you don't use "t" for "th" in abbreviation (maths vs mats).
No, you can't abbreviate "ou" with "o", it's a different sound. Similarly in English, you don't use "t" for "th" in abbreviation (maths vs mats).
Don't forget it starts out with "universal". It's not just bound to Earth. We have greater aims than that ;-)
It really is bound to Earth. It's defined based on TAI (which needs a bunch of atomic clocks all sat on Earth's surface or adjusted to allow for altitude) and the International Earth Rotation Service (which measures how quickly the Earth spins) so as to have it track TAI over the short term, but occasionally inject "leap seconds" so as to track the spin of the planet and keep the relationship between apparent sun position and UTC as expected.
Time isn't really universal by its nature, but at human scale and in a relatively small place like Earth you can mostly pretend it doesn't matter, and UTC helps do that.
Time isn't really universal by its nature, but at human scale and in a relatively small place like Earth you can mostly pretend it doesn't matter, and UTC helps do that.
Next time I'll have to remember my sarcasm closing tag.
Interesting! On an somewhat related note, could someone explain to me why GameCube has always been abbreviated as GCN? GameCube Nintendo seems like it would be a weird answer...
NGC was the common abbreviation is for the Neo Geo Color (despite what wikipedia says): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo_Geo_Pocket_Color
The Wiki says[1]:
> Abbreviated NGC in Japan and GCN in Europe and North America.
So it was “GCN” for Europe as well. It could be somethings like “GameCube de Nintendo” in French and Spanish, “GameCube da Nintendo” in Portuguese, “GameCube di Nintendo” in Italian. Maybe they've decided that the European and Romance-langauge markets were more important for some reason?
Either that, or some entity has copyrighted “NGC” in the US or Europe.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GameCube
> Abbreviated NGC in Japan and GCN in Europe and North America.
So it was “GCN” for Europe as well. It could be somethings like “GameCube de Nintendo” in French and Spanish, “GameCube da Nintendo” in Portuguese, “GameCube di Nintendo” in Italian. Maybe they've decided that the European and Romance-langauge markets were more important for some reason?
Either that, or some entity has copyrighted “NGC” in the US or Europe.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GameCube
GCN comes from the part number prefix that was used by the ODM (almost certainly BroadOn) in development and “Game Cube (for) Nintendo” makes sense in that context. In similar vein, Wii is REV, as in “REVolution”.
It's because "Cube" has an N in it in the metric alphabet.
This is exactly the same reason why the International Organization for Standardization is ISO.
Both are unofficial backronyms now: International Standards Organization, Universal Time Coordinates.
Both are unofficial backronyms now: International Standards Organization, Universal Time Coordinates.
More sane backronyms are Universal Time Coordination (which seems to be used by various metrology people) and Universal Time - Coordinated, which makes sense given the UT0 and UT1 timescales.
This is one of those things that I never even thought to question - the thought never even occurred to me that the acronym doesn't match (for English speakers) because it just is what it is. Funny how we take certain things for granted without thinking about them.
The ITU at that time (sorry!) was dominated by the UK (GMT) and the French. The acronym therefore would have had to be TUC (French) or CUT (English). There is history between the French and the English; neither was acceptable - the ITU is an international organization, and the people who attend its meetings are essentially diplomats.
So we get an acronym that doesn't stand for anything.
It's OK with me... but I could do without the ITU existing at all. They cause nothing but trouble. Dammit, they should stop meddling with the definition of UTC.
So we get an acronym that doesn't stand for anything.
It's OK with me... but I could do without the ITU existing at all. They cause nothing but trouble. Dammit, they should stop meddling with the definition of UTC.
Slight clarification: at that time, there was no ITU, but CCITT, which is decidedly french acronym ;)
Thanks - you are absolutely correct.
I wonder if there's a similar explanation for OWL - Web Ontology Language - or if the creators just really liked smart birds.
I can't find a reference at the moment, but IIRC the rationale behind the OWL acronym is something along the lines of "in a language about consistency, why not have one inconsistent thing?"
I've heard a similar story about Asynchronous Transfer Mode. An ATM cell is 53 bytes long, which seems like a really weird number. The US wanted it to be 64 bytes as they felt this was optimal for them, everyone else wanted it to be 32 bytes, so CCITT split the difference, and made it 48 bytes plus a 5 byte header.
This is somewhat good idea of how standardization works, but in this case it is not entirely correct. The argument there was essentially that ATM with E1-like framing (and thus somewhat different and longer header) could be used across whole france for voice beare channels without echo cancelation. The 5+48 byte with HEC framing variant at least in theory also satisfies this (somewhat nonsencial) requirement.
tl;dr - the English acronym would have been CUT, and in French it would have been TUC, so they picked UTC to avoid favoring either one.
Coordinated Universal Time and Temps Universel Coordonné, respectively. In my head I see UTC and think “Universal Time Coordinated”.
I see it, more specifically, as "Universal Time, Coordinated". It never struck me as an acronym that demanded explanation in English.
Interesting. I always think of it as the Universal Time Coordinate. Probably because I've done a lot of work in inertial coordinate systems (where the earth rotates in the coordinate system versus the coordinate systems rotating with the earth). Inertial coordinate systems have four dimensions, time and three spatial coordinates.
Take it to a brand consultancy, and it'll turn into “Universal. Time. Coordinated.”
Pretty sure the natural order in English is UCT not CUT.
But historically there were Universal Times, several of them, and this was the coordinated version of them.
Either one works, as long as the T is at the end. They both feel equally natural to me.
I disagree. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/adj...
With this the type (?) (universal) comes before the the purpose (co-ordination)
Despite the URL I don't believe this adjective order rule is limited to British English.
With this the type (?) (universal) comes before the the purpose (co-ordination)
Despite the URL I don't believe this adjective order rule is limited to British English.
I suppose it depends on what is modifying what. If it's actually "universal time" and you have coordinated it, then CUT makes sense. If it's just "time" that you've both made universal and coordinated, then UCT makes sense.
I knew the French were running things on the standards end ever since v.32bis. Having it be one or the other seems better than neither of them. When selecting imperial or metric, we don't start using a feeter (half way between a foot and a meter).
I think the French were the first to create ASCII's first predecessor if I recall correctly, used in line of sight telegrams.
Do you have further information on this? It sounds interesting.
Baudot code?
Ah yes. Quite familiar with Baudot for several reasons. I didn't make the connection.
So, for largely the same reason why ATM cells have a 48-byte payload.
Sorta like this comic: https://xkcd.com/1923/
Replace "Fahrenheit" and "Celsius" with "English" and "French" and that's basically what we have here. We took the average of the two (CUT vs TUC).
Replace "Fahrenheit" and "Celsius" with "English" and "French" and that's basically what we have here. We took the average of the two (CUT vs TUC).
When speaking of UTC, I always speak it out as Universal Coordinated Time, or UCT - I never thought about that until today
I felt the plus/minus in the coordinate is unintuitive.
Let's use an example
07:00:00+01:00 is equal with 08:00:00+02:00.
How could 7+1=8+2?
Let's use an example
07:00:00+01:00 is equal with 08:00:00+02:00.
How could 7+1=8+2?
UTC is unique/boring and doesn't have semantic baggage. I think that's a plus.
Reminds me of NATO/OTAN (English/French)
Also reminded me of CERN - Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire, despite it now being the Organisation Européenne pour la Recherche Nucléaire/European Organization for Nuclear Research.
The French.
Number of french speakers in the world... 76 million. Number of english speakers... 1.5 billion. It should be CUT, fuck the french and bad acronyms.
Those numbers have to be off:
According to wikipedia [0]:
English 379.0 million native speakers, 1.132 billion total
French 76.8 million native speakers, 279.8 million total
It seems you might have mixed the French native speakers with a (high estimate of) the English total speakers.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_total_num...
English 379.0 million native speakers, 1.132 billion total
French 76.8 million native speakers, 279.8 million total
It seems you might have mixed the French native speakers with a (high estimate of) the English total speakers.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_total_num...
Maybe we were just trolling english speakers and their curious way to format dates ;)
Maybe it was that the French were bringing their platinum-iridium meter bar to the meetings and wouldn't hesitate to rap your knuckles if you got out of line.
According to your logic it should be in Chinese.
Well, French is commonly spoken every day by a lot more 76M people, it's more in the area of 200 to 300M people. If you go in Marocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Ivory Coast, Cameroon and other former colonies in Africa, you can reasonably expect people to be fluent, at least in cities.
I find comfort in the fact you're not a diplomat... I hope
Well, holee-shit, TIL... Because with my four years of high school French, and having never given it a lot of thought, I always assumed that because $STANDARDS_BODY was French (I assumed, to make theory plausible), then UTC stood for <said with heavy French accent> "Universale Time Coordinatier" or something (and my sincere apologies to our French-speaking HN users). Had my brain actually engaged what I learned in French class, that of course would be incredibly wrong, starting with "what the hell is that adjective doing at the beginning of the phrase?"
It’s just the politically correct way of saying GMT or Zulu, like you are supposed to say BCE and CE instead of BC and AD for years now.
You say “politically correct” as if “UTC” is a phrase that deeply offends people.
Technically UTC is not the same as GMT. The two can differ by up to 0.9 seconds.
And I'm steadfastly among the ranks of grumpy old farts who still use AD and BC.
And I'm steadfastly among the ranks of grumpy old farts who still use AD and BC.
> Technically UTC is not the same as GMT. The two can differ by up to 0.9 seconds.
It’s UT1 and UTC that differ by up to 0.9 seconds. GMT and UTC are equal unless you’re in a specialized field (navigation) where it is considered to be UT1. Otherwise, GMT is just the name of a time zone UTC+0000.
TAI measures seconds. UT1 measures the earth’s rotation. UTC combines these by using TAI plus a changing offset to keep within 0.9s of UT1.
It’s UT1 and UTC that differ by up to 0.9 seconds. GMT and UTC are equal unless you’re in a specialized field (navigation) where it is considered to be UT1. Otherwise, GMT is just the name of a time zone UTC+0000.
TAI measures seconds. UT1 measures the earth’s rotation. UTC combines these by using TAI plus a changing offset to keep within 0.9s of UT1.
Are you sure? GMT is the UK time standard defined by the British Government. Last time I looked they had defined it to be the same as UTC.
That may not be the case anymore.
I think that the bigger difference is that GMT is a time zone used in countries that observe daylight savings time. UTC applies universally, everywhere and always, but it's a little bit nonsensical to use GMT to describe events that happen during summer in the UK.
I think that the bigger difference is that GMT is a time zone used in countries that observe daylight savings time. UTC applies universally, everywhere and always, but it's a little bit nonsensical to use GMT to describe events that happen during summer in the UK.
KibbutzDalia(4)
Using GMT would be quite confusing, because most GMT-using countries are also DST-using and people in those countries tend to (strictly speaking incorrectly) refer to the timezone as GMT all year round.
There's also a not-insignificant risk that the UK moves timezone at some point; if it stays in Europe it will likely be required to drop DST, and may end up on UTC+1. This would make GMT even more confusion-prone.
There's also a not-insignificant risk that the UK moves timezone at some point; if it stays in Europe it will likely be required to drop DST, and may end up on UTC+1. This would make GMT even more confusion-prone.
> people in those countries tend to (strictly speaking incorrectly) refer to the timezone as GMT all year round.
Not really. I've found that mistake much more common in Americans. Calling the time in London GMT got baked in to some software (ing Outlook) but locals perfectly well understand BST.
France wanted it to go through the Bering Strait or the Azores, and made the argument that the SI meter (introduced nearly 100 years before) was a truly neutral measure, being based on one ten millionth of the distance from the equator to the North Pole. Other delegates answered that its is still a French system, because it was France that took the measurement and introduced French error into it.
Ultimately practical concerns won out, as 70% of the world's shipping and charts were already using Greenwich as the meridian, and for any other place to truly be a meridian there would need to be an observatory there with telegraph links to the rest of the world.
Another gem is the part where the Spanish delegate expressed that he had been authorized to vote for Greenwich as the meridian, but was doing so in the hope that England and the United States will accept the metric system. The president replies that this is outside the scope of the conference, to which the Spanish delegate replies that they know this, and anyway protocol doesn't allow them to vote on "hopes" anyway, but he just needed to say it.
Although Greenwich was chosen, France was a holdout and didn't adopt it until 1911, and even then did not call it "Greenwich Time", but rather "Paris Mean Time retarded by nine minutes and 21 seconds." This was their official designation until they adopted UTC. The UK on the other hand still calls their time GMT legally, even though they are actually using UTC now, which is not precisely the same as GMT!
The proceedings make for some entertaining and enlightening reading: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/17759/17759-h/17759-h.htm