Talk:Swatch Internet Time

message: I see several examples of usage and initial adoption, but what about general reception? For how long did those who adopted the system continue to use or support it? Has the general public ever used it, and how did they react to it? Has anyone ever criticized it? None of these questions are currently answered in this article. —173.199.215.5 (talk) 23:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Good questions!  The great thing about Wikipedia is that you can answer them. Wikipedia is crowd-sourced, which means that anyone can be a contributor. If the answers exist somewhere, you are encouraged to do research to find them and edit the article accordingly. --Nike (talk) 23:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

text: I did have the same name on GEnie, 20 years ago, although I don't know who you are or what I might have done that was memorable. As for Swatch, I think it's obvious from the article that it was a gimmick, and a failure if it was ever meant to be anything else. But saying so outright might be considered POV, unless you're quoting an outside source. --Nike (talk) 03:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

text: "ie: it failed because it was just a corporate gimmick that was laden with trademark, corporate logos, and other such naming nonsense to do with branding and not a legitimate attempt at a universal time system" That's an opinion, and opinions aren't allowed in Wikipedia articles. Identifing it as failed also musn't be done; the article about Esperanto doesn't do it either... Com. BOY (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If a reliable source has written about how something failed, that can be quoted. The Esperanto article explains that the language "has not yet achieved the hopes of its founder to become a universal second language" and quotes some of the criticism it received and the theories as to why it failed. --McGeddon (talk) 15:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  What was the reception? 

message: http://www.geekosystem.com/beat-swatch-internet-time/
-- John Broughton   (♫♫) 05:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  More recent information 

message: Anyone know how leap seconds are represented and handled? 176.10.136.120 (talk) 12:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: They aren't. --Nike (talk) 16:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: So does that mean it will continue to lag more and more behind UTC? 176.10.136.120 (talk) 13:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Internet Time is not an independent time scale, just a conversion of UTC, i.e. it is always one hour ahead of UTC. --Nike (talk) 16:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

text: To be more specific, although Swatch states that it is based upon "the Biel Meantime Meridian", in actuality a "day in internet time begins at midnight BMT (@000 Swatch .Beats) (Central European Wintertime)", according to their own web page, so what they call BMT is really just CEWT, which is UTC+1. If you use the converter on their web site, you will see that one second before midnight (23:59:59 UTC+1, CEWT or BST) is 999.beats, and midnight is 0.  This is true no matter which year you enter, regardless of how many leap seconds have been added since then.  (Of course, during summer time, 0.beats is 01:00 in Switzerland, but midnight in Portugal and the British Isles.) --Nike (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Then BMT does take leap seconds into account, i.e., follows them whenever they occur, because CEWT follows them - if BMT didn't, it would cease to be exactly one hour ahead of UTC. SchnitteUK (talk) 19:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

text: As one .beat is 86.4 seconds long, we haven't had more than 86 leap seconds inserted and future leap seconds can not be predicted, using their calculator for this is pretty much useless. I could accept that 999 .beats is the last and 0 .beats is the first of each day, meaning then that the last .beat on a day with a leap second is one second longer. 176.10.136.120 (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: "As one .beat is 86.4 seconds long, we haven't had more than 86 leap seconds inserted" - What? What has one got to do with the other? SchnitteUK (talk) 09:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leap seconds 

message: Swatch no longer seems to sell bear watches or promote beat time. Since it was a gimmick for their digital watches, and the current industry is split between mechanical and smart watches, beat watches appear to be gone. When was the last one sold? Time to change the article to past tense, I think. — @625  Nike (talk) 14:04, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  RIP beats? 

message: The leading dot breaks normal orthography throughout the article. Perhaps the pronunciation should be clarified to avoid leaving the reader guessing, and perhaps assuming incorrectly that the term is pronouned analogous to "dotnet" (.Net Framework). -- J7n (talk) 09:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation of the dot