3 ms·
> Now we can be sure that the age for any Person will always be within the range [0, 150). Hopefully, in the future, we'll look at this like we look at two-dig
by JoshTriplett 3y ago
> Now we can be sure that the age for any Person will always be within the range [0, 150).
Hopefully, in the future, we'll look at this like we look at two-digit year storage or 32-bit seconds-since-the-epoch storage, and the Y2k or Y2038 problems.
- kmeisthax 3y agoMy database management experience is shouting "don't store an age, store a birthday".
- londons_explore 3y agoAge is usually considered not PII, whereas a birthday is usually considered sensitive enough it needs protecting. Obviously you could store birth year, but that leads to other issues.
- ben_w 3y agoI too hope to experience this problem.
- DaiPlusPlus 3y ago2038 is only 14 years away - and there’s plenty of 32-bit systems still around (including those using 32-bit timestamps). For example, a system I built back in 2011 which controls an Asterisk v11 box is still running, literally unmodified, in production (and it needs restarting by cron job every few days) and I suspect it’s still going to be there in 14 years’ time too.
- JoshTriplett 3y agoI found it fascinating that the first signs of the problem started cropping up in 2008, because of 30-year mortgages.
- DaiPlusPlus 3y agoFor me, it was because of John Titor