Epoch fail!!!

Bishma , 7 hours ago

Are we still calling it Y2k38? I think it needs some rebranding or we won’t be able recruit devs to put in the overtime to fix it so history can decide it was all fake.

NegativeInf , 6 hours ago

I tend to favor The Epochalypse.

blackluster117 , 5 hours ago

Damn, that is catchy.

TexasDrunk , 4 hours ago

Well you won. I’m headed in to work tomorrow to get started on marketing it to the C suite using this.

NegativeInf , 3 hours ago

I look forward to the coming developments.

HubertManne , 3 hours ago

I was part of y2k rememdiation and we did some stuff for the next leap year as well and I had heard about work being done for future things. Im not in it anymore but im wondering if some is already done. Thing about y2k is it was a time when the backbone stuff was never upgraded. Banks using mainframes running cobol programs and such. Now it feels like every company changes their software yearly.

Bishma , 2 hours ago

The company I work for has about half their product line written on a 4GL platform that was sunset 15 years ago.

ChaoticNeutralCzech , 6 hours ago

Inaccurate. Signed 32-bit integer epoch overflows from January 2038 to December 1901.

saigot , 5 hours ago

If the calendar was written in C++ or many of it’s derivatives then signed integer overflow is undefined behaviour and it could technically choose to do anything it damn well wants (unsigned integers actually do have defined overflow behaviour). Something tells me the runtime of a paper calendar is anything but standard :D

observantTrapezium , 4 hours ago

Haha, that’s right. Immediate noticed that.

Ioughttamow , 7 hours ago

Here’s our chance. Reagan should stick to acting