3 ms·
Does 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
by awhitty 12y ago
Does 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.