https://xkcd.com/2867

Alt text:

It’s not just time zones and leap seconds. SI seconds on Earth are slower because of relativity, so there are time standards for space stuff (TCB, TGC) that use faster SI seconds than UTC/Unix time. T2 - T1 = [God doesn’t know and the Devil isn’t telling.]

  • ericbomb@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    120
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    We use datediff in sql and let God handle the rest.

    “Oh but they’re in different time zones” “Oh did you account for if one is in day light savings and other isn’t” “Aren’t some of these dates stored in UTC and some local?”

    Are all problems I do not care about.

        • phoneymouse@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          19
          ·
          11 months ago

          If your system hasn’t been upgraded to 64-bit types by 2038, you’d deserve your overflow bug

          • Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Let’s just nake it 128-Bit so it’s not our problem anymore.
            Hell, let’s make it 256-Bit because it sounds like AES256

            • phoneymouse@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              14
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              64 bits is already enough not to overflow for 292 billion years. That’s 21 times longer than the estimated age of the universe.

              • nybble41@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                11
                ·
                11 months ago

                If you want one-second resolution, sure. If you want nanoseconds a 64-bit signed integer only gets you 292 years. With 128-bit integers you can get a range of over 5 billion years at zeptosecond (10^-21 second) resolution, which should be good enough for anyone. Because who doesn’t need to precisely distinguish times one zeptosecond apart five billion years from now‽

                • Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  11 months ago

                  If you run a realistic physical simulation of a star, and you include every subatomic particle in it, you’re going to have to use very small time increments. Computers can’t handle anywhere near that many particles yet, but mark my words, physicists of the future are going want to run this simulation as soon as we have the computer to do it. Also, the simulation should predict events billions of years in the future, so you may need to build a new time tracking system to handle that.

              • Faresh@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                With a 128 bit integer you can represent 340 undecillion (or sextillion if you use the long scale notation) seconds, which is equivalent to 10 nonillion (or quintillion, long scale) years. The universe will long have have stopped being able to support life by then because stars stopped forming (enough time would have passed it could have happened a hundred quadrillion (a hundred thousand billion, long form) times over assuming we start counting from the birth of the universe).

      • The_Lurker@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Swatch’s Internet Beats are making more and sense every time Daylight Savings forces a timezones change. Why are we still using base 12 for time anyway?

  • marcos@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    66
    ·
    11 months ago

    From the wikipedia:

    TCB ticks faster than clocks on the surface of the Earth by 1.550505 × 10−8 (about 490 milliseconds per year)

    It’s amazing that this level of detail is relevant to anything.

    • KISSmyOS@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      48
      ·
      11 months ago

      Without considering this, most people wouldn’t be able to drive anywhere they haven’t been before anymore.

      • brianorca@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        “Wouldn’t be able to” is a bit of a stretch, since Thomas Maps existed long before GPS. But it wouldn’t be so easy as it is now.

          • nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            I was about when I navigated using an AAA TripTik to get my mom and younger brothers through an 1600 mile road trip. We also had AAA guidebooks for along the path when I had to help pick a motel along the way because a torrential rain slowed us down. It was a fun game of figuring out how far it was, whether it had enough stars (mom said at least 2, but the more the better), and the best price.

            It was the late 80s though, and I didn’t have a game boy, so it was kinda the only form of entertainment.

      • whoisearth@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Epoch is your friend, or use UTC. At least that’s my layman reasoning. I have no challenges working with DateTime except when I don’t know the underlying conditions applied from the source code.

      • kurwa@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        I got to “The day before Saturday is always Friday” and I was like waaaa?

    • lad@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      11 months ago

      This one is good (or evil, depends on how you see it):

      Human-readable dates can be specified in universally understood formats such as 05/07/11.

      • elvith@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        11 months ago

        That one’s really good.

        Which one is it?

        • July 5th 2011
        • May 7th 2011
        • July 11th 2005
        • November 7th 2005

        And is it 2011/2005 or rather 1911/1905, 1811/1805,…?

    • Kethal@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      11 months ago

      Does anyone know what is untrue about “Unix time is the number of seconds since Jan 1st 1970.”?

      • icydefiance@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        27
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        When a leap second happens, unix time decreases by one second. See the section about leap seconds here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_time

        As a side effect, this means some unix timestamps are ambiguous, because the timestamps at the beginning and the end of a leap second are the same.

        • nybble41@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          11 months ago

          It might be more accurate to say that Unix time is the number of days since Jan 1st, 1970, scaled by 24×60×60. Though it gets a bit odd around the actual leap second since they aren’t spread over the whole day. (In some ways that would be a more reasonable way to handle it; rather than repeating a second at midnight, just make all the seconds slightly longer that day.)

    • randy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      11 months ago

      I really wish that list would include some explanations about why each line is a falsehood, and what’s actually true. Particularly the line:

      The software will never run on a space ship that is orbiting a black hole.

      If the author has proof that some software will run on a space ship that is orbiting a black hole, I’d be really interested in seeing it.

      • nybble41@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        11 months ago

        Technically isn’t the Earth itself a sort of space ship which is orbiting (…a star which is orbiting…) the black hole at the center of the Milky Way galaxy? Not really close enough for time dilation to be a factor, but still.

      • elvith@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        11 months ago

        All links to the original article are dead and even archive.org doesn’t have a capture either. I guess the argument is along the lines of “it might not be relevant, when you’re scripting away some tasks for your small personal projects, but when you’re working on a widely used library or tool - one day, it might end up on a space vessel to explore whatever.”

        E.g. my personal backup script? Unlikely. The Linux kernel? Somewhat plausible.

      • Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        It’s a programmer thing. As you’re typing the code, you may suddenly realize that the program needs to a assume certain things to work properly. You could assume that time runs at a normal rate as opposed to something completely wild when traveling close to the speed of light or when orbiting a black hole.

        In order to keep the already way too messy code reasonably simple, you decide that the program assumes you’re on Earth. You leave a comment in the relevant part of the code saying that this part shouldn’t break as long as you’re not doing anything too extreme.

      • Aceticon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Well in a very strict sense one can’t really say “never” (unless you can see into the Future), but it’s probably safe to go along with “It’s highly unlikelly and if it does happen I’ll fix it or will be long dead so won’t care”.

  • chuck@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    11 months ago

    Ah I’ve gotten to the point where I have to define what “frame” and epoch each time base is in before I’ll touch the representation of time( Unix,Gregorian, etc) .To be honest I’m probably just scratching the surface of time problem.

    Hell probably the reason we haven’t seen time travellers is we suck at tracking time and you probably need to accurately know your time and place to a very good precision to travel to a given point and we can’t say where and when that is with enough accuracy to facilitate where to land. And people don’t want to land in the earth’s surface or 10000 km away from a stable orbit. Maybe some writer can build that out for a time travel book or to discount it for some reason lol

    • kurwa@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      I recall a short story like that where someone died because they time traveled, but didn’t account for position.

    • niktemadur@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Then there’s continental drift, which as Indiana Jones reminded us this past summer, Archimedes didn’t know about when he built his time machine.

      Pet peeve: brushing aside the time travel fantasy element, there is not a single shred of evidence of any type of connection between Archimedes and the Antikythera Mechanism.

      As if the only person clever enough in Ancient Greece was that one famous dude from Syracuse.
      Ionians: “Are we a joke to you?”

    • Omniraptor@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Could you eli5 what frame and epoch are? I don’t get why aren’t unix timestamps an adequate way to store time, they seem pretty easy and intuitive

  • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    I just spent two days debugging a reporting endpoint that takes in two MM-YYYY parameters and tries to pull info between the first day of the month for param1 and the last day of the month for param2 and ended up having to set my date boundaries as

    LocalDate startDate = new LocalDate(1, param1.getMonth(), param2.getYear()); //pretty straightforward, right?

    //bump month by one, account for rollover, set endDate to the first of that month, then subtract one day

    int endMonth = param2.month == 12 ? param2.month + 1 : 1;

    LocalDate endDate = new LocalDate(1, endMonth, param2.year).minusDays(1);

    This is extraordinarily simply for humans to understand intuitively, but to code it requires accounting for a bunch of backward edge/corner case garbage. The answer, of course, is to train humans to think in Unix epoch time.

  • BeautifulMind ♾️@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    LOL whenever I have to work with DateTime systems that try to account for every possibility (and fail trying) I am reminded that in some disciplines, it’s acceptable to simplify drastically in order to do ‘close enough’ work.

    I mean, if spherical cows are a thing because that makes the math of theoretical physics doable, why not relativity-free or just frame-constant date-time measures that are willing to ignore exotic edge cases like non-spherical livestock?

    • Kogasa@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      Because “relativity” isn’t even close to your biggest problem with time. The way we communicate time changes historically, unpredictably, without obvious record. The only way to know what time you’re talking about is to know exactly how you got your information. What location, measured at what time relative to recorded changes in the local time zone, with how much drift relative to the last time you synchronized to which ntp server, and so on. These things easily account for hours or days of error, not just nanoseconds.

  • MxM111@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Not even going to general relativity, as this comics suggests to experience time slowing down due to gravity, the events are not just at time, but also at particular location in space relative particular inertial system. Not specifying it, and not specifying the inertial system for which the final answer is needed makes it impossible to calculate even in special relativity, without effects of gravity.

    • steventhedev@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Here’s the shortlist of horrors I’ve had to deal with in my career:

      • Mixed US/ROW short date formats - DD/MM/YY, MM/DD/YY
      • mixed timezones in the same column
      • the wrong timezone (marked as PDT but actually UTC, or sometimes the other way around)
      • clock drift
      • timezones again…because timezones suck
      • historical timezones
      • NTP configurations

      Things I’ve read about but haven’t needed to deal with personally:

      • leap seconds
      • clock slew vs skip
      • hardware clocks
      • PTP

      The one thing I really don’t care about is relativity

  • Limonene@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    C++ user with operator overloading: “T2 minus T1.”

    Let someone else implement the class. There’s probably a library for it.