4 ms·
Since I use DuckDuckGo for searches, I probably wouldn't notice this. Not receiving Gmail for a while wouldn't be noteworthy (at least for the first half hour o
by clebio 14y ago
Since I use DuckDuckGo for searches, I probably wouldn't notice this. Not receiving Gmail for a while wouldn't be noteworthy (at least for the first half hour or so).
I'm confused about the times the author gives, though. The article is dated today (11/6) and he says this happened 'today' at 6:24pm PST / 02:24 UTC. But unless I'm mistaken, that is a time currently in the future (http://time.gov/timezone.cgi?Pacific/d/-8/java http://time.gov/timezone.cgi?Pacific/d/-8/java). I guess he meant yesterday?
- robk 14y agoYou're counting across the dateline, so for you it was 11/5.
- clebio 14y agoAm I? Not snark: if I'm misunderstanding this, I truly want to know. I'm in central US, CST, and the article gives PST. That conversion has always just been +2 hours.
- Cushman 14y agoAs I read it that was 18:24 yesterday in PST, or 02:24 today in UTC. The use of "today" may just be sloppy dating-- or it may reflect that it was today for most of those affected.
- clebio 14y agoMy guess was that he wrote the article yesterday, but didn't publish it until today. It's not a big deal, was just curious.
- eastdakota 14y agoThat's correct. Tom wrote the article yesterday (11/5) but I didn't review it and hit publish until today (11/6). Sorry for the confusion.