Talk:Year 10,000 problem

message: I think the year 10,000 and beyond deserve an entry; they elicit thought about interesting computer science issues including planning for unlikely occurrences and designing for bug-resistance.  I do think, however, that the page should be named (and include) "Year 10,000 problem and beyond".  It can include interesting factoids of the sort interesting to info-holics such as "how many leap seconds will there have been by the time we face the year 10,000 problem? 100,000?".  Inquiring minds want to know!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kennita728 (talk • contribs) 07:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consolidate far-future pages 

message: *"We'll know the shift has happened when programmers begin to anticipate the Year 10000 problem and assign five digits instead of four to year dates." from The Clock of the Long Now: Time and Responsibility
*:By Stewart Brand
*:Published 1999
*:Basic Books
*:Time
*:190 pages
*:.
*Also a brief mention in Accounting Principles
*:By Philip E. Fess, Clifford Rollin Niswonger, Carl S. Warren 
*and in College Accounting
*:By John Ellis Price, Horace R. Brock.
(from Google Books search) --Coppertwig (talk) 04:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible references 

message: =DATE(0,1,0) gives 0/01/1900
if you -1 from that the cell fills with hash's the same as 31/12/9999 + 1 does -- Stony (talk) 07:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ...in some particular program? --NapoliRoma (talk) 22:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh sorry, MS Excel 2007, was reading something about it before i posted this and just somehow assumed it was about it, must have been a blonde moment. Stony (talk) 05:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No ''31/12/1899'' 

message: I know Microsoft are a bit slow at making important updates, but I'm sure even they will have made a few changes to their software upon the release of Microsoft Office 10000. Maybe they'll release a service pack. Who knows. But is this article not a bit of a joke?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helzagood (talk • contribs) 02:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Asked and answered in the article itself.--NapoliRoma (talk) 17:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I think it is a joke, the whole tiem travel thing is proves it as such.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.110.37 (talk) 04:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a joke.  I'm a computer programmer and it is true that all years are now kept in 4 digits.  In the year 10000 we will have problems.  And like the article says, computing halflife of nuclear waste runs into this year 10,000 problem.  You never know, with medical technology advancing there is some slim hope some of us might be alive by then.  But that is pure speculation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.142.35.91 (talk) 20:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: With all due respect, I have seriously doubts about your claim of being a "computer programmer". Firstly. that is not a commonly used term. Those working in the field tend to call themselves "software developers". Second, the claim that "all years are now kept in 4 digits" is flat out wrong. By my estimate, the most common datatypes for storing years are, in order, N/A (entire dates or date/times are stored instead of storing dates separately), variable-length strings, and 16, 32 or 64-bit integers. In particular, if math needs to be done on a date, it is almost always done on a numeric variable, not on a string. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Without commenting on the bigger issue, "computer programmer" seems a fairly common term amongst those of us who have been in the profession for more than a couple of decades.  Rwessel (talk) 22:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seriously? 

message: Well I don't know why I'm discussing this since this is like so far in the future, but why don't we just go backwards after we reach the year 9999? Like the BC period it went backwards until it reached 1BC and then the next year it went to 1AD, 2AD, so on and so on. That will solve all our problems. After 9999 we will go to 9998  —Preceding unsigned comment added by MavsMan27 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Because events two years apart would have the same date for one thing. That might get just slightly confusing. You'd need an additional field, and all the logic to go with it, to specify the period (like BC/AD) at which point you may as well just correct the original mistake and use a bigger number for the year. 87.244.97.152 (talk) 14:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Going Backwards? 

message: and Y1M one, how humanity can survive to such a terrible issue ? May be one day one genious will be able to separate human representation from the computer one. May be he will use something like a timestamp to deal with dates which are billion years in the future or in the past. Until that glorious day, many useless articles will pop up. --193.52.225.144 (talk) 09:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about Y100K problem ? 

message: Year 10,000 problem → Time formatting and storage bugs 
Rationale: Year 2042 problem, Year 32,768 problem, Year 65,536 problem, Year 292,277,026,596 problem and Year 170,141,183,460,469,231,731,687,303,715,884,105,727 problem already redirect to Time formatting and storage bugs, many because of prior merges. (Year 2000 problem and Year 2038 problem have separate articles because there is a lot to cover on those topics). Better to have one comprehensive and well-written article covering all these "XXXX problem" topics except those few that are too large to include. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: *Support per nom.  I can't believe there really is a redirect at :Year 170,141,183,460,469,231,731,687,303,715,884,105,727 problem!  Who is going to look for that by name?  —EncMstr (talk) 20:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

text: *Support per nom.  (That redirect is there because a frequently-blocked editor, known for creating inappropriate time articles and redirects, created it.)  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:59, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

text: *Support per above.  This will make for a longer than average section, but the target article is not very long to begin with.  Note: the :Year 170,141,183,460,469,231,731,687,303,715,884,105,727 problem redirect is the wrong value (see Time formatting and storage bugs, where I fixed those in 2009).  Should it just be deleted?  Or replaced with the correct one (in so far as there is actually a "correct" value")?  Rwessel (talk) 11:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Even though it is improbable, WP:REDIRECTSARECHEAP so it should not be deleted.  What would the correct one be?  —EncMstr (talk) 21:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Year 10,783,118,943,836,478,994,022,445,751,223 problem would be approximately a direct replacement, but it's hard to say that's a real date - even ignoring the fact that the Earth will have been destroyed by the end-of-life antics of the Sun long before then, the accumulated leap seconds and changes in orbits will likely add trillions of years worth of error to that number.  The number above is correct assuming an unaltered Gregorian calendar following the usual 4/100/400 rules.  But what then, about redirects for Year 584,554,051,223 problem, Year 5,391,559,471,918,239,497,011,222,876,596 problem, and whatever year would be implied by the signed version of the miscalculated Year 170,141,183,460,469,231,731,687,303,715,884,105,727 problem?  Rwessel (talk) 21:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

text: Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to their respective articles, not for general discussion of the topic. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested Merge 

message: Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
(Do not reply to comments here -- do that in the section below.)
:*Support per nom.  I can't believe there really is a redirect at :Year 170,141,183,460,469,231,731,687,303,715,884,105,727 problem!  Who is going to look for that by name?  —EncMstr (talk) 20:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: *Support per nom.  (That redirect is there because a frequently-blocked editor, known for creating inappropriate time articles and redirects, created it.)  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:59, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

text: *Support per above.  This will make for a longer than average section, but the target article is not very long to begin with.  Note: the :Year 170,141,183,460,469,231,731,687,303,715,884,105,727 problem redirect is the wrong value (see Time formatting and storage bugs, where I fixed those in 2009).  Should it just be deleted?  Or replaced with the correct one (in so far as there is actually a "correct" value")?  Rwessel (talk) 11:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Even though it is improbable, WP:REDIRECTSARECHEAP so it should not be deleted.  What would the correct one be?  —EncMstr (talk) 21:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Year 10,783,118,943,836,478,994,022,445,751,223 problem would be approximately a direct replacement, but it's hard to say that's a real date - even ignoring the fact that the Earth will have been destroyed by the end-of-life antics of the Sun long before then, the accumulated leap seconds and changes in orbits will likely add trillions of years worth of error to that number.  The number above is correct assuming an unaltered Gregorian calendar following the usual 4/100/400 rules.  But what then, about redirects for Year 584,554,051,223 problem, Year 5,391,559,471,918,239,497,011,222,876,596 problem, and whatever year would be implied by the signed version of the miscalculated Year 170,141,183,460,469,231,731,687,303,715,884,105,727 problem?  Rwessel (talk) 21:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Add any additional comments / arguments here.
According to the ISO-Standard, a thousands separator is a fixed space. (Dots and commas are - depending on language - used as decimal signs)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.64.113.107 (talk) 19:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to their respective articles, not for general discussion of the topic. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: I have seen a video about Windows 10 using years 9999, 10000, 20000 and 24613. In the year 9999 was functional enough, and no year was added to 9999/10000. When the year was set to 20000, Windows set it to 20001 after reboot, and after sometime in 24613, all current Windows 10 computers simply not boot. This looks like a worse solution than in ≤7 where overflows were handled using keeping only the last 4 digits and throwing an error if year <1601. (But planned obsolescence is >2 times slower). This video demonstrates these. This can't be by overflow of the FILETIME, else Windows had the overflow 6215 years later.) Alfa-ketosav (talk) 14:12, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Year 10000 (9999), 20000 and 24613 problem