
Today at 16:53:20 GMT, it'll be 1400000000 in Unix time. - ozh
http://www.epochconverter.com/
======
gilgoomesh
That's like what? 0x53724E00? It's not even a round number. Silly humans.

~~~
ozh
Yeah 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?

~~~
kachnuv_ocasek
0x55555555 is in a year and two days. Tangible enough?

~~~
turbojerry
For 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)

~~~
nakkiel
And for those who don't get the other joke, "555" is the Thai equivalent of
"lol".

~~~
kemo
nerds.

~~~
girzel
What great pleasure this thread gave me. My Thai daughter confirmed the joke
and, after a very painful explanation of bases, was laughing (tentatively)
along with me.

------
yread
Hmm I still remember the party we had when it was 1234567890!

~~~
baxter001
1234,5678,99 scans a little better.

------
rinon
Happy quattuordecamegacentenial!

------
awhitty
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.

~~~
shurcooL
I 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/...](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/8554242/dmitri/projects/shuryear-
clock/index.html)

~~~
ingenter
Interestingly, 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
It'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.

------
acqq
Did 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?

~~~
mrrazz
Yes, I remember it fondly, celebrating the 'billennium' on IRC:

[https://krux.org/misc/billennium_log](https://krux.org/misc/billennium_log)

~~~
thret
Thanks for posting this.

------
callesgg
[http://xkcd.com/1340/](http://xkcd.com/1340/)

~~~
sirtel
Could you please explain more, I don't get this.

~~~
ronaldx
If 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
"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...](http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/acharya/Inputs/Books/Foucault's%20Pendulum.pdf)

------
trevyn
For the curious: 1500000000 is in July 2017.

------
adnam
In case you need a CLI countdown

    
    
        while [ $((1400000000-$(date +%s))) -gt 0 ]; do echo $((1400000000-$(date +%s))); sleep 1; done

------
krt
I'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
Looks like you overflowed when when_was == 9, or maybe there's a time machine
involved?

------
richbradshaw
Epoch Win.

------
ChiChou
At 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.

------
userbinator
It'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
Actually 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
Not 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
Because 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
Woaa - schizophrenia and pattern matching? Can you elaborate that sounds
interesting !

------
sebslomski
I still remember the great 1234567890 party. We had a great time back then!
(Feb 13 2009)

------
David-A
Octal then. We have 012345670000 and 012345677777 in June.

------
bjoerns
no party for the Excel people: 41772.7037037037

~~~
ygra
Windows also has it quite boring: 130444736000000000

Nobody talks about the year 30827 problem either :-(

~~~
adamnemecek
Maybe by that time people will have finally upgraded from XP. But maybe I'm
too naive.

------
mykhal
numerology is not my cup of tea.

~~~
jacquesm
Maybe subtle software issues introduced by people not taking into account the
possibility of their software somehow living past the projected life-span is?

