| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| | That is why on Unix epoch (the <nowiki>time_t</nowiki> type) is '''signed''' type, and covers dates before ''epoch''. --[[User:JakubNarebski|JakubNarebski]] ([[User talk:JakubNarebski|talk]]) 19:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC) | | That is why on Unix epoch (the <nowiki>time_t</nowiki> type) is '''signed''' type, and covers dates before ''epoch''. --[[User:JakubNarebski|JakubNarebski]] ([[User talk:JakubNarebski|talk]]) 19:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC) |
| | :Ohh, and much more is missing. I did mark it as incomplete. We also have to talk about the time frame the 32bit ''epoch'' does cover, and what would be changed by using a 64bit variable. What will happen on 19 January 2038?--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC) | | :Ohh, and much more is missing. I did mark it as incomplete. We also have to talk about the time frame the 32bit ''epoch'' does cover, and what would be changed by using a 64bit variable. What will happen on 19 January 2038?--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC) |
| − | ::The general hope, it appears, is that 64-bit integers will be firmly in place, having ousted the feeble 32-bit integers from the system time. As has been demonstrated in innumerable instances, it's rather difficult to eliminate legacy code from systems due to attempts to support older systems in a backward-compatible methodology. In short, however, it will take time to resolve time. [[User:Thokling|Thokling]] ([[User talk:Thokling|talk]]) 05:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
| |
| − | ::: I so look forward to seeing Epoch boom to hurriedly uplift 32 bit code before the 'end'. Similar to the Y2K boom. I might consider lending my expertise at a considerable markup. :) [[User:Puck0687|Puck0687]] ([[User talk:Puck0687|talk]]) 17:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
| |
| − | ;Rewrite needed
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The current explanation barely has to do with the actual topic of the comic. Instead it explains several unrelated qualities of Unix time, and petty much skips over the actual epoch thing. Needs a rewrite.
| |
| − | --NeatNit [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.58|141.101.99.58]] 05:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Why would anyone want to take the square root of a timestamp? It is much more likely that Cueballs program just handles negative time values incorrectly. [[User:Condor70|Condor70]] ([[User talk:Condor70|talk]]) 07:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :I agree, I changed the page to reflect that [[User:PotatoGod|PotatoGod]] ([[User talk:PotatoGod|talk]]) 03:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | http://coolepochcountdown.com/ links to this site saying that XKCD captured moment when Unix time counter reached 1234567890, so maybe this comic is released at that moment {{unsigned ip|172.68.154.88}}
| |
| − | :No, that time would occur about a year from this comic's publication (13 February 2009 at 23:31:30 UTC). [[607: 2038]] was published 8 July 2009, which is about five months too late, and I have no idea how [[543: Sierpinski Valentine]] had to do with Unix time. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.59.144|172.68.59.144]] 22:34, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
| |
