10 ms·
If we’re going to change the timestamp let’s do it correctly this time and start counting from 0001-01-01 (like “ticks” in C#) or 0000-01-01 because adding anot
by shpx 4y ago
If we’re going to change the timestamp let’s do it correctly this time and start counting from 0001-01-01 (like “ticks” in C#) or 0000-01-01 because adding another number (1970) for other people to have to learn about and memorize is bad design and unnecessary overhead and one subgroup of one profession naming a whole time epoch was kind of pretentious. It would also have the added benefit of being hard to confuse a value in this timestamp with a Unix timestamp.
- gpderetta 4y ago> let’s do it correctly this time and start counting from 0001-01-01 [...] > one subgroup of one profession naming a whole time epoch was kind of pretentious. I think that the UNIX epoch is bless contentious that the other epoch, as is not tied to a religious event. OS wars not withstanding. Also the UNIX time was specifically designed for UNIX.
- sllabres 4y agoYou know, that they used a different calendar back then, right?