7 ms·
Today at 16:53:20 GMT, it'll be 1400000000 in Unix time.
- adnam 12y agoIn case you need a CLI countdown while [ $((1400000000-$(date +%s))) -gt 0 ]; do echo $((1400000000-$(date +%s))); sleep 1; done
- acqq 12y agoDid anybody notice Sun, 09 Sep 2001 01:46:40 GMT, when it was 10000....? And why looking at decimal values, anybody calculated when we have some nice binary timestamps?
- eCa 12y agoYes.. I ran a small service started in 2000 that saved epoch times in a varchar column. Sorting on time turned funky for a short while.
- dribnet 12y agoYes, this was on the radar then as Y2k was still fresh in everyone's memory. [1] "S1B coming" http://tech.slashdot.org/story/01/04/17/1915221/the-quickly-descending-unix-timestamp http://tech.slashdot.org/story/01/04/17/1915221/the-quickly-... [2] "Any Billennium Bugs?" http://tech.slashdot.org/story/01/09/10/0353238/billenniums-over---anything-break http://tech.slashdot.org/story/01/09/10/0353238/billenniums-...
- khc 12y agoapparently: http://blog.jdlh.com/en/2009/02/12/1234567890_day/1000000000-seconds-since-the-posix-epoch-as-celebrated-in-denmark-in-2001/ http://blog.jdlh.com/en/2009/02/12/1234567890_day/1000000000...
- settrans 12y agoOr perhaps Fri, 13 Jul 2012 11:01:20 GMT, unix time 0x50000000? Developers using MongoDB at the time were likely to notice.
- stingraycharles 12y agoCould you elaborate? I couldn't find anything about that timestamp in relation to MongoDB.
- petercooper 12y agoBSON object IDs contain a 4 byte timestamp so perhaps it'd be directly visible on those.
- cperciva 12y agoThe FreeBSD Project actually had a gigasecond bug -- the cvsup protocol (used for CVS tree replication and checkouts) transmitted time as an ASCII seconds-since-epoch value, and when September 2001 arrived, the changed string length caused a protocol sanity check to fail.
- mrrazz 12y agoYes, I remember it fondly, celebrating the 'billennium' on IRC: https://krux.org/misc/billennium_log https://krux.org/misc/billennium_log
- thret 12y agoThanks for posting this.
- slyall 12y agoOpenldap got hit by the billennium bug. I remember because we told our Noc to keep an eye open (Sunday afternoon where we were) and we started getting alerts that all LDAP replication was broken. http://www.openldap.org/lists/openldap-bugs/200109/msg00052.html http://www.openldap.org/lists/openldap-bugs/200109/msg00052....
- alephnil 12y agoYes. In java at the time if you wrote a number with 9 or less digits, it would always be considered to be an int. If the number was above 1 billion (10 digits), you had to end it with an L (1000000000L), probably since it possibly could overflow an int. We had a trial version of our software that would expire after 30 days. To make that we had a script that inserted the expiry date into the source and recompiled every night. Around 30 days before it passed 1 billion the compiler started to give an error, and the script crashed. (It may actually have been 12->13 digits, since java use milliseconds since the epoch, but I'm not so sure this many years later)
- trevyn 12y agoFor the curious: 1500000000 is in July 2017.
- rinon 12y agoHappy quattuordecamegacentenial!
- gilgoomesh 12y agoThat's like what? 0x53724E00? It's not even a round number. Silly humans.
- sytelus 12y agoAnd why would you be so obsessed with round numbers? Silly pseudo-humans.
- ozh 12y agoYeah but 0x60000000 will be 14 Jan 2021 08:25:36 GMT, who knows if the internet will still exist by this time so we can celebrate?
- yiedyie 12y agoYou meant internet as we know it.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- kachnuv_ocasek 12y ago0x55555555 is in a year and two days. Tangible enough?
- turbojerry 12y agoFor those that may not get the joke the 555 is a timer chip. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/555_timer_IC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/555_timer_IC
- ChiChou 12y agoAt the very first day of this year, I sent a tweet saying that Jan 01 2014 16:57:46 GMT+0800 was 1388566666666 in Unix time.
- awhitty 12y agoDoes anyone else get a sense of vertigo when they try out numbers like 3000000000 (January 23, 2065)? It's like it's close enough to be tangible but far enough to be scary.
- ozh 12y agoYeah, unless http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2038_problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2038_problem
- shurcooL 12y agoI often glance at a floating-point year clock that shows time is passing in the context of a year [1]. It helps me get back on track of being productive and stay true to my goals, when seeing time fly by in such a way... [1] https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/8554242/dmitri/projects/shuryear-clock/index.html https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/8554242/dmitri/projects/...
- zwegner 12y ago<super-pedantic-mode>That's actually fixed-point, since the decimal point is always in the same place, right after the year.</super-pedantic-mode>
- ingenter 12y agoInterestingly, there is an error in your code: number of seconds in a year is not constant, so you might get next year before a new year. Here's a fixed version: http://jsfiddle.net/r8txd/4/show/ http://jsfiddle.net/r8txd/4/show/
- shurcooL 12y agoIt's not an error, it's a design decision. I wanted the rate of time increase to be constant every year, and I wanted the time to be universal (across all timezones). I did take leap years into account by calculating the average year length in seconds. I also wanted the calculation to be simple and independent of variations in earth's rotation speed changes, etc. So yes, over a long time, it will diverge from "years" as we know them. The only reason I used years is to provide context, since most people have a feel for how long a year is. After that, everything is base 10.
- yread 12y agoHmm I still remember the party we had when it was 1234567890!
- baxter001 12y ago1234,5678,99 scans a little better.
- richbradshaw 12y agoEpoch Win.
- callesgg 12y agohttp://xkcd.com/1340/ http://xkcd.com/1340/
- sirtel 12y agoCould you please explain more, I don't get this.
- ronaldx 12y agoIf serious: "exciting" dates, such as 5/8/13 (Fibonacci numbers), happen all the time. Randall at XKCD is mocking those who find this exciting. Further explanation: http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1340 http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1340
- oleganza 12y ago"Gentlemen," he said, "I invite you to go and measure that kiosk. You will see that the length of the counter is one hundred and forty-nine centimeters-in other words, one hundred-billionth of the distance between the earth and the sun. The height at the rear, one hundred and seventy-six centimeters, divided by the width of the window, fifty-six centimeters, is 3.14. The height at the front is nineteen decimeters, equal, in other words, to the number of years of the Greek lunar cycle. The sum of the heights of the two front corners and the two rear corners is one hundred and ninety times two plus one hundred and seventy-six times two, which equals seven hundred and thirty-two, the date of the victory at Poitiers. The thickness of the counter is 3.10 centimeters, and the width of the cornice of the window is 8.8 centimeters. Replacing the numbers before the decimals by the corresponding letters of the alphabet, we obtain C for ten and H for eight, or C10H8, which is the formula for naphthalene." "Fantastic," I said. "You did all these measurements?" "No," Aglie said. "They were done on another kiosk, by a certain Jean-Pierre Adam. But I would assume that all lottery kiosks have more or less the same dimensions. With numbers you can do anything you like. Suppose I have the sacred number 9 and I want to get the number 1314, date of the execution of Jacques de Molay-a date dear to anyone who, like me, professes devotion to the Templar tradition of knighthood. What do I do? I multiply nine by one hundred and forty-six, the fateful day of the destruction of Carthage. How did I arrive at this? I divided thirteen hundred and fourteen by two, by three, et cetera, until I found a satisfying date. I could also have divided thirteen hundred and fourteen by 6.28, the double of 3.14, and I would have got two hundred and nine. That is the year in which Attalus I, king of Pergamon, joined the anti-Macedonian League. You see?" "Then you don't believe in numerologies of any kind," Dio-tallevi said, disappointed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault's_Pendulum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault's_Pendulum PDF: http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/acharya/Inputs/Books/Foucault's%20Pendulum.pdf http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/acharya/Inputs/Books/Foucault...
- userbinator 12y agoIt's amazing that there's only 24 years left until 2^31 seconds since the epoch... I'm looking forward to January 19, 2038 (provided that I'm still around by that time...)
- estebank 12y agoActually 2038 is scary because it can affect many systems that need to calculate things long (pun intended) in the future. Imagine if you take a 25 year mortgage and the backend system still uses 32bit clock_t...
- brandonhsiao 12y agoNot to be a party pooper but why is that a big deal? You'll get a neat number like that every 1,150 days or so.
- Sanddancer 12y agoBecause it's a neat looking number. Human brains are real good at finding patterns, and mulling over where there appears to be no patterns, hence things like the interesting number paradox ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interesting_number_paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interesting_number_paradox ), or our puzzlement over disorders like schizophrenia, where those mechanisms break down.
- lifeisstillgood 12y agoWoaa - schizophrenia and pattern matching? Can you elaborate that sounds interesting !
- krt 12y agoI'm in the Mountain Time Zone (GMT-6 right now): #!/usr/bin/env python import datetime for when_was in xrange(0,10): print datetime.datetime.fromtimestamp(14 * 10**when_was) $ ./theabove.py 1969-12-31 17:00:14 1969-12-31 17:02:20 1969-12-31 17:23:20 1969-12-31 20:53:20 1970-01-02 07:53:20 1970-01-16 21:53:20 1970-06-11 18:53:20 1974-06-09 02:53:20 2014-05-13 10:53:20 2413-08-22 17:53:20 <krt@box>:~$ python -c "import datetime;print datetime.datetime.fromtimestamp(1400000000)" 2014-05-13 09:53:20
- KayEss 12y agoLooks like you overflowed when when_was == 9, or maybe there's a time machine involved?
- bjoerns 12y agono party for the Excel people: 41772.7037037037
- ygra 12y agoWindows also has it quite boring: 130444736000000000 Nobody talks about the year 30827 problem either :-(
- adamnemecek 12y agoMaybe by that time people will have finally upgraded from XP. But maybe I'm too naive.
- sebslomski 12y agoI still remember the great 1234567890 party. We had a great time back then! (Feb 13 2009)
- mykhal 12y agonumerology is not my cup of tea.
- jacquesm 12y agoMaybe subtle software issues introduced by people not taking into account the possibility of their software somehow living past the projected life-span is?
- David-A 12y agoOctal then. We have 012345670000 and 012345677777 in June.