8 ms·
and .... it's buggy try https://www.google.com/search?q=timer+724+years https://www.google.com/search?q=timer+724+years click on start, looses most of the tim
by franze 4y ago
and .... it's buggy
try https://www.google.com/search?q=timer+724+years https://www.google.com/search?q=timer+724+years
click on start, looses most of the time
- intrestingstuff 4y ago[dead]
- zatkin 4y agoWhen would you ever need a timer for 724 years?
- paxys 4y agoA bug is a bug. "Why would anyone ever do XYZ" is a separate discussion. And if you write software for a living you know that there is always that one user who will do exactly XYZ.
- bbertelsen 4y agoHyrum's law. How meta.
- kuboble 4y agoNope. Undefined behavior on obviously incorrect input isn't a bug in my world. ( might be in other circumstances )
- taftster 4y agoYou must be a C programmer.
- insightcheck 4y agoHaha. I was thinking along similar lines as kuboble, but then I'm someone in the process of trying to learn C. I agree, upon further thought, that at least an error message would be better for the user (e.g. "Maximum timer duration exceeded").
- dogecoinbase 4y ago"Undefined behavior consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be compiler engineers whom the language standard protects but does not bind, alongside developers whom the language standard binds but does not protect." (source: https://twitter.com/jckarter/status/1558181259314167808 https://twitter.com/jckarter/status/1558181259314167808 )
- diarrhea 4y agoI mean, the query is “timer $period”. It’s correct in its syntax, a period’s a period. It’s not asking for “timer TIMMY; DROP TABLES”. That’s incorrect input.
- nomel 4y agoIt's not incorrect input. It's incorrect handling of accepted input.
- JohnFen 4y agoUndefined behavior on obviously incorrect input is always a bug. Incorrect input should give you an error.
- sverhagen 4y agoSure, a bug is a bug, but the original remark was that the software was "buggy". I read "buggy" as riddled with pretty obvious bugs. If we're calling software "buggy" for having any bugs, then, I guess, nearly all software is "buggy" (and the word looses its usefulness).
- Jtsummers 4y agoAnything over 100 hours gets recalculated modulo 100, so 101 hours becomes 1 hour. But then the page title, which is meant to show the current countdown in the tab display, gets updated to show the full time, but weirdly formatted. So at least two bugs. Try "timer 101 hours". The page title will (very quickly) show "10:05:9x" where x is the 10s digit of the seconds. While the page itself claims it's a one hour timer (59 minutes and some seconds). So the actual time is in there somewhere, just showing up wrong in both places. It also doesn't seem to let me enter 30 minutes as a timer, but most other minutes times work. So, yes, it's buggy. EDIT: It's not actually modulo 100 hours, I should note. The display is showing it that way, but since it has the real time stored internally it still counts down. If it were actually modulo 100 hours then it would zero out a 100 hour (or 200 or 300...) countdown immediately, instead these wrap to 99 hours, 59 minutes, and 59 seconds on the first tick. EDIT: For grins I'd started a 101 hour timer a bit over an hour ago before stepping away from the computer. Despite the display silliness, it actually will run for 101 hours. After the first hour the displayed time rolls back to 99:59:59 and the page title updates correctly. I also noticed that there's a progress bar below the timer, it correctly shows the progress within the 101 hour timer the whole time.
- sverhagen 4y agoThose sound like reasonable bugs, the original that we were responding to (724 years), less so.
- benbristow 4y agoWhen you're waiting for the answer to life, the universe and everything
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- efsavage 4y ago724 Test Engineers walk into a bar...
- anonu 4y agoMaybe to be reminded that were about 7% of the way through the life of the 10,000 year clock? https://www.10000yearclock.net/learnmore.html https://www.10000yearclock.net/learnmore.html
- Tepix 4y agoDid they finish building it?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- TrainedMonkey 4y agoSome kind of overflow, it resets timer to 40 hours. Same thing happens with 1 year, except timer is reset to 60 hours. Another interesting observation is that "timer 723 years" did not bring timer up, but "timer 722 years" did. Update: "timer 100 hours" works, but "timer 101 hours" does not. That is 100 hours is 144,000 seconds, does not seem to be anything special about this number.
- jefftk 4y agoSometimes it drops to 40hr, other times to 100hr. Haven't been able to figure out what the pattern is.
- buildbot 4y ago725 years causes it to glitch twice
- buildbot 4y agoI got it to reset twice in row by using 725 years, reset to 63 then 99!
- bhaney 4y agoIt can just only handle two digits in the hours place after the first tick. Any other digits get removed. 1 year becomes 60 hours because it turns 1 year into 8760 hours, then removes the "87" and leaves the "60" Edit: this seems like it's just a display bug and the original time is still preserved. If you search "timer 100 year 1 second" then it formats to "876000h 00m 01s", then the next tick shows "0s", then the next tick shows "99h 59m 59s" > Another interesting observation is that "timer 723 years" did not bring timer up That is weird. Even weirder that "timer 723 year" (singular) does seem to work.
- theophrastus 4y ago..and curiously, with the little speaker icon 'on', it produces no audio alarm for me, (firefox 103.0.2). Whereas this[1] one produces a quite notable sound. [1] https://www.online-stopwatch.com/countdown-timer/ https://www.online-stopwatch.com/countdown-timer/
- willio58 4y agoThese days browsers make sure there's user interaction before audio plays. The other website you linked requires a click to start the timer, therefore meeting that requirement. If Google made this timer muted by default, and you had to click unmute, it would likely work. Ran into a related bug on a site I was working on the other day and had to learn this browser quirk the hard way.
- martin_a 4y agoI wouldn't be surprised if this was a "Chrome only" feature. In 2022 everything can happen.
- bmitc 4y agoIs it really buggy? Is it a feature that you need a timer of 724 years ... in a web browser?
- scoopertrooper 4y agoOP took things a little far, you can make it glitch at the 5 day mark. You may ask why I'd need a timer in my web browser for 5 days, and you be right to do so.
- bmitc 4y agoHaha. I'm not even for sure why I need a timer in the web browser at all. However, I will concede it is indeed rather buggy. A Google search of "timer 3 minutes" does nothing for me, as it just performs a normal search with no timer widget. A search of "timer 2 minutes" or "timer 4 minutes" works fine.
- cmelbye 4y agoI've noticed that the language parsing of these knowledge/assistant queries is a bit strange sometimes. A more subjective example is "10 lakh in USD". This isn't a perfectly formed query -- lakh is not a currency but a unit in the Indian numbering system. However, I think most humans would assume that I'm talking about converting Indian rupees and this is reflected in the organic search results. Google understands that I'm trying to convert currency but for some reason decides that I meant "10 lakh Euro in USD".
- margalabargala 4y agoAn obvious bug is an obvious bug, even if typical users don't often hit the bug. I can absolutely think of a reasons why someone would use this. For example, a DM in a role playing game might pull up a very long timer as a prop to show their players. I agree that "the number of times you want a 724 year timer to count to zero" is negligibly small, but that is a minor subset of "the number of times you want to show a 724 year timer counting towards zero"
- aeyes 4y agoAnd the title of the page shows something else and doesn't update.
- phailhaus 4y ago#wontfix
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]