5 ms·

It was posted in the comments that ISO 8601, at one point, mentioned 1875-05-20 as a reference date. According to Wikipedia, it was later omitted[0]. I guess it

It was posted in the comments that ISO 8601, at one point, mentioned 1875-05-20 as a reference date. According to Wikipedia, it was later omitted[0]. I guess it's possible that the social security system (EDIT: that we know today) was initially designed with that date as a sort of epoch. Either way, it seems nuanced and no one has the full story (including Elon) [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601

chrisco255 2y ago
> was first published in 1988 No, the social security system and the COBOL that powers it predates that standard by quite a lot.
- hypeatei 2y ago
  That makes a lot of assumptions, especially given there was most likely Y2K problems that needed addressing and system upgrades taking place since the initial system rollout. This page[0] states that there was changes to the system in the 1960s but I can't find anything more recent so... maybe you're right. Who knows. [0]: https://www.ssa.gov/history/ibm.html https://www.ssa.gov/history/ibm.html
  - chrisco255 2y ago
    Y2K problems were related to attempting to represent years with 2 digit numbers. By no means would setting a date to 1875 fix a Y2K problem, it would just exacerbate it. Even if the problem originated from a Y2K "fix", it would still be a major bug, resulting in millions to billions in excessive payouts going to who knows where.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - IX-103 2y ago
      I think parent post is saying that when they fixed the Y2K problem, they likely also modernized the date representation to comport with international standards. It wouldn't really be any more difficult to do both of those at the same time than just fixing Y2K bugs.
jomar 2y ago
Wikipedia says "ISO 8601:2004 established a reference calendar date of 20 May 1875 (the date the Metre Convention was signed), later omitted from ISO 8601-1:2019." I was curious what "reference calendar date" is supposed to mean. Thanks to links in the SE thread, I found the relevant actual text in ISO 8601:2000 (I don't know how different it might be, if at all, in the 2004 document): > The Gregorian calendar provides a reference system consisting of a, potentially infinite, series of contiguous calendar years. Consecutive calendar years are identified by sequentially assigned year numbers. A reference point is used which assigns the year number 1875 to the calendar year in which the “Convention du mètre” was signed at Paris. This last sentence is simply an obtuse way to say "this year right now, as I [jomar] write this -- we call this 2025". Apparently the ISO committee did not want to refer to what was going on around 1 AD or felt that the missing 0 between 1 BC and 1 AD would lead to confusion or something, so instead used the birth year of the metre to state the bleeding obvious.
- jjmarr 2y ago
  Nobody actually knows what year Jesus was born, so setting "1 AD = Jesus' first full year of life" wouldn't be accurate. It's more or less the same puzzle as COBOL's alleged default. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Date_of_the_birth_of_Jesus#According_to_Dionysius_Exiguus:_the_Anno_Domini_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Date_of_the_birth_of_Jesus#Acc... The current year numbering is because a monk called Dionysius Exiguus thought the existing system of numbering the years since Emperor Diocletian was stupid as Diocletian persecuted Christians. Dionysius decided the year in which he invented his calendar was 525 years since the birth of Jesus and created the Anno Domini system. Dionysius didn't really explain why he thought Jesus was born 525 years ago (in December of 1 BC). Many historiographers have tried to understand his logic. Thankfully, unlike COBOL programmers, Dionysius documented his reasoning for picking 1 BC as the reference year, so we only have to argue about whether he was correct.
- jedwards1211 2y ago
  The original post on X completely misinterpreted this to mean that ISO 8601 established days since 1875 as a standard date storage format
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
[flagged]
- jcranmer 2y ago
  Which of these scenarios is more likely: * The government is paying claims for people who are 150 years old. * The database is using 150 year olds as a sentinel value for a missing data. Given that the people making the claims for the former are reportedly young people (who thus have less experience with the quality of data in actual databases), who are outsiders and thus have not had training on the actual data entry procedures for the database in question, I find it extremely plausible that they made a search term for old claimants, claimed it as clear fraud, and never realized (or even bothered to ask) that it could just be a sentinel value. Especially given Musk's history of contempt for experts who tell him he's wrong, I don't think Musk's explanation that it's fraud holds up to any scrutiny, even given a lack of knowledge of the particulars of the database in question.
  - zimpenfish 2y ago
    > * The government is paying claims for people who are 150 years old. ...and that no-one has noticed for the ~40 years they'd presumably be unlikely to be alive given that living past 110 is vanishingly rare despite audits, etc., until Elon and his Special Boys turned up.
  - mike_hearn 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - jonathanstrange 2y ago
      Maybe you need to look up what "sentinel value" means. It almost looks as if you're replying to a different post.
      - mike_hearn 2y ago
        [flagged]
masswerk 2y ago
Isn't it possible that 1875 was chosen, because of compatibility with US legacy data encoding and that then an arbitrary, but notable date in this year was chosen as the reference date (i.e., the Convention du Mètre)? I guess, the USA had quite a stake in this…
- jedwards1211 2y ago
  I don’t think there’s anything in ISO 8601 pertaining to integers that represent the number of years since some specific year though. ISO 8601 prescribes string representations, not integers, and it requires at least four digits for the year, and the year the Convention du Mètre was signed is expressed as 1875, not 0.

chrisco255 2y ago

> was first published in 1988 No, the social security system and the COBOL that powers it predates that standard by quite a lot.

hypeatei 2y ago
That makes a lot of assumptions, especially given there was most likely Y2K problems that needed addressing and system upgrades taking place since the initial system rollout. This page[0] states that there was changes to the system in the 1960s but I can't find anything more recent so... maybe you're right. Who knows. [0]: https://www.ssa.gov/history/ibm.html https://www.ssa.gov/history/ibm.html
- chrisco255 2y ago
  Y2K problems were related to attempting to represent years with 2 digit numbers. By no means would setting a date to 1875 fix a Y2K problem, it would just exacerbate it. Even if the problem originated from a Y2K "fix", it would still be a major bug, resulting in millions to billions in excessive payouts going to who knows where.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - IX-103 2y ago
    I think parent post is saying that when they fixed the Y2K problem, they likely also modernized the date representation to comport with international standards. It wouldn't really be any more difficult to do both of those at the same time than just fixing Y2K bugs.

jomar 2y ago

Wikipedia says "ISO 8601:2004 established a reference calendar date of 20 May 1875 (the date the Metre Convention was signed), later omitted from ISO 8601-1:2019." I was curious what "reference calendar date" is supposed to mean. Thanks to links in the SE thread, I found the relevant actual text in ISO 8601:2000 (I don't know how different it might be, if at all, in the 2004 document): > The Gregorian calendar provides a reference system consisting of a, potentially infinite, series of contiguous calendar years. Consecutive calendar years are identified by sequentially assigned year numbers. A reference point is used which assigns the year number 1875 to the calendar year in which the “Convention du mètre” was signed at Paris. This last sentence is simply an obtuse way to say "this year right now, as I [jomar] write this -- we call this 2025". Apparently the ISO committee did not want to refer to what was going on around 1 AD or felt that the missing 0 between 1 BC and 1 AD would lead to confusion or something, so instead used the birth year of the metre to state the bleeding obvious.

jjmarr 2y ago
Nobody actually knows what year Jesus was born, so setting "1 AD = Jesus' first full year of life" wouldn't be accurate. It's more or less the same puzzle as COBOL's alleged default. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Date_of_the_birth_of_Jesus#According_to_Dionysius_Exiguus:_the_Anno_Domini_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Date_of_the_birth_of_Jesus#Acc... The current year numbering is because a monk called Dionysius Exiguus thought the existing system of numbering the years since Emperor Diocletian was stupid as Diocletian persecuted Christians. Dionysius decided the year in which he invented his calendar was 525 years since the birth of Jesus and created the Anno Domini system. Dionysius didn't really explain why he thought Jesus was born 525 years ago (in December of 1 BC). Many historiographers have tried to understand his logic. Thankfully, unlike COBOL programmers, Dionysius documented his reasoning for picking 1 BC as the reference year, so we only have to argue about whether he was correct.
jedwards1211 2y ago
The original post on X completely misinterpreted this to mean that ISO 8601 established days since 1875 as a standard date storage format

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago

[flagged]

jcranmer 2y ago
Which of these scenarios is more likely: * The government is paying claims for people who are 150 years old. * The database is using 150 year olds as a sentinel value for a missing data. Given that the people making the claims for the former are reportedly young people (who thus have less experience with the quality of data in actual databases), who are outsiders and thus have not had training on the actual data entry procedures for the database in question, I find it extremely plausible that they made a search term for old claimants, claimed it as clear fraud, and never realized (or even bothered to ask) that it could just be a sentinel value. Especially given Musk's history of contempt for experts who tell him he's wrong, I don't think Musk's explanation that it's fraud holds up to any scrutiny, even given a lack of knowledge of the particulars of the database in question.
- zimpenfish 2y ago
  > * The government is paying claims for people who are 150 years old. ...and that no-one has noticed for the ~40 years they'd presumably be unlikely to be alive given that living past 110 is vanishingly rare despite audits, etc., until Elon and his Special Boys turned up.
- mike_hearn 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - jonathanstrange 2y ago
    Maybe you need to look up what "sentinel value" means. It almost looks as if you're replying to a different post.
    - mike_hearn 2y ago
      [flagged]

masswerk 2y ago

Isn't it possible that 1875 was chosen, because of compatibility with US legacy data encoding and that then an arbitrary, but notable date in this year was chosen as the reference date (i.e., the Convention du Mètre)? I guess, the USA had quite a stake in this…

jedwards1211 2y ago
I don’t think there’s anything in ISO 8601 pertaining to integers that represent the number of years since some specific year though. ISO 8601 prescribes string representations, not integers, and it requires at least four digits for the year, and the year the Convention du Mètre was signed is expressed as 1875, not 0.