3 ms·
AlphaDec: 2025_L0V3_001827 Instead of: ISO 8601: 2025-06-14T23:37:42.814Z This is misleading. The precision is less than 1 min, So it should be: A
by nivertech 1y ago
AlphaDec: 2025_L0V3_001827
Instead of:
ISO 8601: 2025-06-14T23:37:42.814Z
This is misleading. The precision is less than 1 min, So it should be:
AlphaDec: 2025_L0V3_001827
Instead of:
ISO 8601: 2025-06-14T23:37
or
DateTime: 20250614_2337
This format is a Rube Goldberg machine which adds nothing to the table.
BTW: was this format designed with the help of an LLM? LLMs can easily misunderstand or miss the big picture, while over-optimizing for small details.
- Dylan16807 1y agoYou got the precisions mixed up. (which is understandable) A0A0 is multi-minute chunks. A0A0_000 is seconds. A0A0_000000 is milliseconds.
- nivertech 1y ago> Example: AlphaDec: 2025_L0V3 (or full canonical: 2025_L0V3_000000) UTC: June 5th, 2025 at 13:45 still holds: 2025_L0V3_000000 20250605_1345000
- Dylan16807 1y agoYou made a typo there, 1345000 doesn't make sense. Hours, minutes, three more digits? Here's how I'd lay out the comparison if we're doing proper ISO 8601: 2025_L0V3_000 20250605T134500Z 2025_L0V3_000000 20250605T134500.000Z
- nivertech 1y agoeither 2025_L0V3_000000 20250605_134500000 or 2025_L0V3_000.000 20250605_134500.000 2 digits is good trade-off for clarity and better mapping to the problem domain.
- Dylan16807 1y agoI wouldn't really say the periods compare like that but it doesn't really matter. I also prefer ISO 8601 here. But I think removing the Z isn't worth the risk, so that makes it a 3 character difference.