the leading zeros are a sign that the poster is unusually short-sighted and only concerned about the next 98,000 years or so in their fixed-size date representations.

before i get tarred and feathered, i'm just going for a cheap ironic laugh here, no offense intended! :) more seriously, i sorta doubt humanity is going to be around long enough to care, and if we are, the odds of some apocalypse resetting our calendars aren't zero.

I wonder how bad 2038 will be. Real talk, I expect a lot of servers to go down.

During my first week in my first programming job I remember overhearing a senior engineer saying “don’t worry, there’s not another leap year for 2 years”. I was still working there on February 29, he wasn’t. It was a stressful day. My condolences go out to the engineers who will be working on January 1st 100000.

Surely by then we'll have had a powerful enough pope to rename the months at least once.

My hope is that some programmer dictator will instate a form of the discordian calender:

- All 5 seasons are the same length - The days of the year always fall on the same week day, as the week is 5 days long - the year always starts with the first day of the week. - the leap day is not assigned a day

Things I would change though: - start the year at winter solstice. - put the leap day at the end of the year.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discordian_calendar

Finally, we can get rid of Wednesday... Wendsday? Woesnday?.... that day in the middle of the week that no one can spell =P

February need to be reconsidered as well imo.

In German Wednesday got that treatment in the middle age and was replaced by what would be midweek in English.

You can rename the months any time you feel like. The problem is getting other people to go along with your renaming.

Once upon a time, enough people cared what the Pope had to say, he could actually succeed in changing the calendar for everybody. But, it would be a rather interesting future history for the Catholic Church to regain power to the point that became true once again.

Not sure renaming the months is gonna help with the numbering of the years...

SEPTember = 7

OCTOber = 8

NOVember = 9

DECember = 10

Fixed it!

And do we need the name "JASON" (July to November) first letters? Seems unnecessary.

Easier to make the year begin in March.

I understand Madoff's scheme started in 1960's/1970's. The feeders to the fund date way back. The SEC enforcement action in the early 90's wasn't directly related to the ponzi scheme, more aimed at the feeders. The wiki pedia article has this "Federal investigators believe the fraud in the investment management division and advisory division may have begun in the 1970s.[27][failed verification] However, Madoff himself stated his fraudulent activities began in the 1990s.[28] ". I would trust the Feds. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madoff_investment_scandal

Probably preparing for the year 9999 issue early.

Most systems don't have a Y10k issue: year numbers are variable-width already. Forcing a fixed-width 5-digit representation is creating a Y100k issue.

Never made sense how any software would consider the year value as _two characters_ when an integer works far better. There's even a 0 epoch date for crying out loud.

Because when the Y2K problem was created, computers had only recently been invented, every byte counted, and there was no history of software best practices.

Even by 1980, which was 5 years before any recorded mention of the Y2K problem, an IBM mainframe, of the kind a university might have, had only e.g. 4 MB of main memory, which had to support many concurrent users.

Such computers would have been unable to load even a single typical binary produced by a modern language like Go or Rust into its memory - yet they supported dozens of concurrent users and processes, doing everything from running accounting batch jobs, compiling and running programs in Assembler, COBOL, FORTRAN, PL/I, or APL, and running interactive sessions in languages like LISP or BASIC. Part of how they achieved all that was not wasting any bytes they didn’t absolutely have to.

Possibly, the origins of the practice predates computers entirely, and goes back to their predecessors in business data processing, unit record equipment. As such, it may be like many other traditions - made complete sense when it was invented, yet people still clung to it long after it ceased to do so.

Unit record equipment generally didn’t use binary integers, instead using BCD; and most early business-oriented computers followed their example. Binary integers were mainly found on scientific machines (along with floating point), until the mid-1960s, when the hard division between business computing and scientific computing faded away, and general purpose architectures, equally capable of commerce and science, began to flourish.

I think this is a generational divide when computers were significantly more limited. If you look at older data formats, they are nearly all fixed width. Either due to punch cards, memory constraints, performance considerations, or just band wagoning, prematurely optimizing for date representation seems silly.

Early mainframes read data on punch cards or tape files which were character-based (or possibly, binary-coded decimal). Two digits were used for the year to save memory.

I was under the impression it was a quirk in cobol.

no

His Ponzi provably started in 1991. It may have been going on for longer than that.