NIST was 5 μs off UTC after last week's power cut

Re:NIST was 5 μs off UTC after last week's power cut by dmurray on Monday December 22, 2025 @05:21PM (#46359864)

It's 1 us granularity, which means you should report your timestamps with six figures after the decimal point.

The required accuracy (Tables 1 and 2 in that document) is 100 us or 1000 us depending on the system.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:NIST was 5 μs off UTC after last week's power cut by blibble on Monday December 22, 2025 @05:52PM (#46360153)

> The required accuracy (Tables 1 and 2 in that document)

no, Tables 1 and 2 say divergence, not accuracy

accuracy is a mix of both granularity and divergence

regardless, your statement before:

> The regulatory requirement you linked (and other typical requirements from regulators) allows a tolerance of one second, so it doesn't call for this kind of technology.

is not true

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:NIST was 5 μs off UTC after last week's power cut by metaphor on Tuesday December 23, 2025 @02:53AM (#46363338)

> accuracy is a mix of both granularity and divergence

I respectfully disagree.

In context, "granularity" is nothing more than a resolution constraint on reported timestamps. Its inclusion adjacent to the specified "divergence from UTC" is a function of market manipulation surveillance objectives as discussed in preamble item (2), and really doesn't have anything to do with accuracy proper.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:NIST was 5 μs off UTC after last week's power cut by broretore on Tuesday December 23, 2025 @08:05PM (#46371328)

any time i am certain of something i never capitalize and i do not end my sentences with periods or use any punctuation because i like people to believe i am an omniscient narrator who cannot be interrupted

[ Parent | on HN ]