this post was submitted on 18 Dec 2024
1084 points (98.3% liked)

memes

10667 readers
2411 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 30p87@feddit.org 138 points 4 days ago (6 children)

Programmers in 292,271,023,045 after uint64_t isn't enough for the unix timestamp anymore:

[–] Agent641@lemmy.world 17 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Programmers dealing with the timezones of asymmetric period binary and trinary star systems once we go interstellar πŸ’€

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Fucking forgot to use a time dilation safe type for storing my time variables

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] stevedice@sh.itjust.works 16 points 3 days ago (2 children)

You don't have to wait that long. Programmers are already patching software for the Y2K38.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] whotookkarl@lemmy.world 18 points 3 days ago (2 children)

The two most difficult things in programming; dealing with time, naming things, and boundary conditions.

[–] grandkaiser@lemmy.today 12 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (6 children)

dealing with time

Network engineer here, it's just as bad here. Currently trying to figure out what to do with 'gaining' a negative leap second. In 2025, we may lose one for the first time in digital history.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk 10 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Time I can deal with, timezones however, fuck that shit all to hell.

[–] LucasWaffyWaf@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago

Insert that Numberphile video with Tom Scott being reasonably angry at time zones.

[–] Rusty@lemmy.ca 95 points 4 days ago (14 children)

I don't think 10000 year is a problem. There is a real "year 2038 problem" that affects system storing unix time in signed int32, but it's mostly solved already. The next problem will be in year 33000 or something like that.

[–] gnutrino@programming.dev 51 points 4 days ago (2 children)

There are so many problems there is an entire Wikipedia page dedicated to them.

[–] marcos@lemmy.world 14 points 4 days ago

Yes, there are random systems using every kind of smart or brain-dead option out there.

But the 2038 problem impacts the previous standard, and the current one will take ages to fail. (No, it's not 33000, unless you are using some variant of the standard that counts nanoseconds instead of seconds. Those usually have more bits nowadays, but some odd older systems do it on the same 64 bits from the standard.)

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Ephera@lemmy.ml 22 points 4 days ago (6 children)

Well, I looked at a Year 10000 problem less than 2 hours ago. We're parsing logs to extract the timestamp and for that, we're using a regex which starts with:

\d{4}-\d{2}-\d{2}

So, we assume there to be 4 digits for the year, always. Can't use it, if you live in the year 10000 and beyond, nor in the year 999 and before.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 9 points 3 days ago

"Fuckin' Y10K..."

[–] SapphironZA@sh.itjust.works 28 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Nah, they will do what they always do. Change some system environmental variables to move the zero date on till after they would have retired.

Nobody wants to touch the original code, it was developed in the 1970s

[–] ddplf@szmer.info 11 points 3 days ago

Look at this fucking piece of shit code, oh right, it's been written by a homo sapiens sapiens. No wonder they collapsed soon after.

[–] MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 25 points 4 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (9 children)

In this thread: mostly people that don't know how timekeeping works on computers.

This is already something that we're solving for. At this point, it's like 90% or better, ready to go.

See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2038_problem

Time keeping, commonly, is stored as a binary number that represents how many seconds have passed since midnight (UTC) on January 1st 1970. Since the year 10,000 isn't x seconds away from epoch (1970-01-01T00:00:00Z), where x is any factor of 2 (aka 2^x, where x is any integer), any discrepancies in the use of "year" as a 4 digit number vs a 5 digit number, are entirely a display issue (front end). The thing that does the actual processing, storing and evaluation of time, gives absolutely no fucks about what "year" it is, because the current datetime is a binary number representing the seconds since epoch.

Whether that is displayed to you correctly or not, doesn't matter in the slightest. The machine will function even if you see some weird shit, like the year being 99 100 because some lazy person decided to hard code it to show "99" as the first two digits, then take the current year, subtract 9900, and display whatever was left (so it would show the year 9999 as "99", and the year 10000 as year "100") so the date becomes 99 concatenated with the last two (now three) digits left over.

I get that it's a joke, but the joke isn't based on any technical understanding of how timekeeping works in technology.

The whole W2k thing was a bunch of fear mongering horse shit. For most systems, the year would have shown as "19-100", 1900, or simply "00" (or some variant thereof).

Edit: the image in the OP is also a depiction of me reading replies. I just can't even.

[–] friendlymessage@feddit.org 16 points 3 days ago (5 children)

Y2K was definitely not only fear-mongering. Windows Systems did not use Unix timestamps, many embedded systems didn't either, COBOL didn't either. So your explanation isn't relevant to this problem specifically and these systems were absolutely affected by Y2K because they stored time differently. The reason we didn't have a catastrophic event was the preventative actions taken.

Nowadays you're right, there will be no Y10K problem mainly because storage is not an issue as it was in the 60s and 70s when the affected systems were designed. Back then every bit of storage was precious and therefore omitted when not necessary. Nowadays, there's no issue even for embedded systems to set aside 64 bit for timekeeping which moves the problem to 292277026596-12-04 15:30:08 UTC (with one second precision) and by then we just add another bit to double the length or are dead because the sun exploded.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 17 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (5 children)

My brother in Christ, there's more to time than just storing it. Every datetime library I've ever used only documents formatting/parsing support up to four year digits. If they suddenly also supported five digits, I guarantee it will lead to bugs in handling existing dates, as not all date formats could still be parsed unambiguously.

It won't help you if time is stored perfectly, while none of your applications support it.

Regarding Y2K, it wasn't horse shit - thousands upon thousands of developer hours were invested to prevent these issues before they occurred. Had they not done so, a bunch of systems would have broken, because parsing time isn't just about displaying 19 or 20.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 5 points 3 days ago (4 children)

The comment you're replying to is really frustrating to me. It annoys me when people are so arrogant but also wrong. Do they live in a perfect world where nobody stores dates as ISO 8601 strings? I've seen that tons of times. Sometimes, it may even be considered the appropriate format when using stuff like JSON based formats.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 11 points 3 days ago (3 children)

You need to qualify your statement about Y2K being fear mongering. People saying all technology would stop (think planes crashing out of the sky) were clearly fear mongering or conspiracy theorists. People saying certain financial systems needed to be updated so loans didn't suddenly go from the year 1,999 to 19,100 or back to 1900 were not fear mongering. It's only because of a significant amount of work done by IT folks that we have the luxury of looking back and saying it was fear mongering.

Look at this Wikipedia page for documented errors. One in particular was at a nuclear power plant. They were testing their fix but accidentally applied the new date to the actual equipment. It caused the system to crash. It took seven hours to get back up and they had to use obsolete equipment to monitor conditions until then. Presumably if the patch wasn't applied this would happen at midnight on January 1st 2000 too.

Y2K was a real problem that needed real fixes. It just wasn't an apocalyptic scenario.

[–] dx1@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

Planes crashing out of the sky wouldn't have been inconceivable. Say you have two air traffic control systems that are synchronizing - one handles dates with a modulo 100 (00-99, i.e. 1900-1999), another handles them in epoch time. All of a sudden the two reported time + positions of two different planes don't match up by a century, and collision projection software doesn't work right. I've seen nastier bugs than that, in terms of conceptual failure.

At no point is that a theory about a "conspiracy" either, IDK why you're bandying that term around.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)

I first heard about the Y2K bug in about 1993 from a programmer who was working on updating systems. These were all older systems, often written in COBOL, which did not use epoch time, and in fact didn't reference system time at all. They'd be doing math on data entered by users, and since they were written back when every byte of memory was precious (and nobody expected that the program would still be in use after 30 years), they'd be doing math on two-digit years. It would certainly be a problem to calculate people's ages, loan terms, payments due, et cetera, and get negative numbers.

Heck, I remember reading a story about a government system once that marked the residents of Hartford, CT as dead, because somehow the last letter of the city name data overflowed into the next column, and marked them as 'd'eceased. Y2K was definitely a real problem.

Y2k was not fear mongering. There were a great many systems, in industrial finance and infrastructure applications that definitely needed to be addressed. You know, the things that keep modern infrastructures running. Of course there were consumer facing companies that took advantage of it, but that was small in comparison.

It ended up not being a disaster, because it was taken seriously.

[–] boonhet@lemm.ee 4 points 3 days ago

Lmao I actively work with shortdates in a database because I have no control over how things are stored. They need to solve before 100 years have passed from the epoch, but at some point before then it'll be fun to figure out if "58" in a date of birth is 1958 or 2058.

[–] JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Y2K wasn't entirely fear mongering horse shit. There were quite a few important cogs in our digital infrastructure that were using code that would not work past 1999. It was necessary to terrify corporate ownership into paying to fix the code, otherwise they would have never done it.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] normalexit@lemmy.world 12 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

2147483647 + 1 will also be a rough year for humanity (or whatever is left)

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TheGiantKorean@lemmy.world 47 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Good news! We'll be exctinct long before this happens. One less thing to worry about!

[–] dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de 15 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Seems hyperbolic to assume we will be extinct by 9999.

Sure we’re heading for a climate crisis, but I don’t think all humans will be dead; Just the poorest.

[–] Donkter@lemmy.world 32 points 4 days ago (6 children)

That has forever been the fallacy.

The poor won't die in the apocalypse leaving only the rich behind. The poor will die, and the rich will be faced with the harsh reality that they needed an army of poor working under them to sustain themselves, leading them to all die within the generation.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Gork@lemm.ee 55 points 4 days ago (4 children)

There might be a new calendar year system by then. Probably some galactic dictator who says that the beginning of their rule is now Year Zero.

Year Zero of the Glorious Zorg Empire!

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] marito@lemmy.world 40 points 4 days ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] JayDee@lemmy.world 10 points 3 days ago

In other news, the colony Szinthar failed to update its software systems due to a lack of pregrammers and Techmancers. Signals received suggest there were no survivors.

[–] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago

Yeah assuming tech gets that far before imploding

[–] chetradley@lemm.ee 33 points 4 days ago (1 children)

In 9999, this meme will be problematic because it assumes the entire galaxy conforms to an Earth-based calendar system.

[–] Zink@programming.dev 15 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Well the USA is on Earth so obviously the earth calendar is the default.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Jamablaya@lemmy.world 25 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

oh just start at 0000 again, signate that as 10,000. Files didn't start until like 1979 anyways, and there can't be many left, and even if it is a problem, now you have 2000 years to not worry about it.

[–] BmeBenji@lemm.ee 22 points 4 days ago

We’re being short-sighted

Tell that to the billionaires speed-running terraforming this planet into a barren wasteland.

[–] a9cx34udP4ZZ0@lemmy.world 13 points 4 days ago (6 children)

Actual programmers wondering why this joke doesn't mention 65535...

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 3 days ago

Again?!

Rest of the world: I guess they overhyped that issue because nothing bad happened.

[–] Zozano@lemy.lol 17 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Awww shit, time to rewatch my favourite Jike Mudge movie starring Lon Rivingston; Space Office (9999).

Haha, I can't believe this guy has the job of manually changing all the dates on the company's database, this place sucks. I bet the past was way better.

load more comments
view more: next β€Ί