Definition: You are given a passage. You need to construct a question about the information present in the passage. Construct a question in such a way that (i) it is unambiguous, (ii) its answer is the whole paragraph. Avoid creating questions that can be answered correctly without actually understanding the paragraph.
Input: nothing to do with daylight savings. Daylight savings is a human invention, not a natural phenomenon.

...because leap seconds are not being added to compensate for the Earth's rotation slowing down.

The amount of time it takes for the earth to revolve around the sun is 365.2425 days.

Even that is an approximation, the decimal digits can keep going on.

So initially, the calendar was divided evenly in 365 days. But about every 4 years, you'd be off 1 day. A century later, you've drifted off by a whole month!

So, leap years came into effect. Febuary has another day every 4 years.

But now you've approximated a year to 365.25 days, when in reality, its 365.2425 days.

Every century, you'll be off 1 day.

So that's where the next rule comes into play: "If the year is divisible by 4, but not by 100, its a leap year."

Now we've approximated it to 365.2425, but because its always going to be an approximation, our calendar days are always slipping. All because the earth doesn't take exactly 365 days to go around the sun.

This is why leap seconds are added, and not to account for the slowdown of the earth's rotation.

As to why days are divided in exactly 24 hours, I'm not sure. But I would think the time difference is WAY less than 20 minutes, or we'd notice that soon enough, its dark at noon! :) Time was divided a long time ago, and a simple system was sought for keeping track of it, so the minuts/hour/year thing is a nice division thats easy to do math with. The lost time, if its accounted for by leap years and such, could be easier to manage.

First, I never said the earth is not slowing down. I said its not why leap seconds exist. And ok, I can entertain my explanation may be wrong, but that's no reason for your condescending tone, Jolly Roger. But look, your link brings me to a christian science evanglism site, where is the evidence that my answer is incorrect?

You haven't bothered to explain his original question. If leapseconds account for the slowdown of the earth's rotation, why are there leap seconds and not leap milliseconds?

If you want to append to your answer, at least try to do so while respecting the other users on this site, and not insult their intelligence.

This has piqued my curiosity, if there's anyone out there that has a source that says my explanation is incorrect, I mean an actual science website, you know, one that steers clear of religion, please let me know.
Output:
According to news sites, the Earth's rotation slows only 2 milliseconds each 100 years. So why the heck are