607: 2038

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Explanation: simplifying another wikipedia link)
Line 16: Line 16:
  
 
{{comic discussion}}
 
{{comic discussion}}
 +
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]

Revision as of 00:24, 8 December 2012

2038
If only we'd chosen 1944-12-02 08:45:52 as the Unix epoch, we could've combined two doomsday scenarios into one and added a really boring scene to that Roland Emmerich movie.
Title text: If only we'd chosen 1944-12-02 08:45:52 as the Unix epoch, we could've combined two doomsday scenarios into one and added a really boring scene to that Roland Emmerich movie.

Explanation

The 2038 problem is a well-known problem with 32-bit Unix-based operating systems. Unix time is stored as a 32-bit signed integer on these systems, counting the number of seconds since 1970. In 2038, we overflow the highest number we can store in 32-bit integers, leading to unexpected behavior. The switch to 64-bit operating systems will most likely be complete by the year 2038, which is why the speaker is relieved. The reference to Y2K is a throwback to the year 2000 problem, in which people were concerned that computers storing digits as two numbers (eg: 99 to represent 1999) would cause problems when the year 2000 began. In both situations, the situation is largely resolved before the actual event, leading to little if no practical problems for users.

Transcript

I'm glad we're switching to 64-bit, because I wasn't looking forward to convincing people to care about the Unix 2038 problem.
Person: What's that?
Cueball: Remember Y2K? This could be even worse!
comment.png add a comment! ⋅ Icons-mini-action refresh blue.gif refresh comments!

Discussion

Can anyone explain the mouse-over text? Saibot84 (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Good thing it's explained now, because I was relating 1944 and apocalypse with WW2. 108.162.212.196 21:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
"calculating dates beyond 2032 is still not solved on many 32-bit UNIX based systems today". Is the year 2032 a typo, should be 2038? If not, what is the relevance of 2032, should be explained. --Pudder (talk) 07:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Tools

It seems you are using noscript, which is stopping our project wonderful ads from working. Explain xkcd uses ads to pay for bandwidth, and we manually approve all our advertisers, and our ads are restricted to unobtrusive images and slow animated GIFs. If you found this site helpful, please consider whitelisting us.

Want to advertise with us, or donate to us with Paypal or Bitcoin?