411:
overhaul of all the code to address a theortical problem whose real significance approaches zero. "That's a Year 10,000 kind of problem--let's leave it for my successor." We also have occasionally used this rather non-ironically to describe in a generic sense any kind of problem that would require large scale code examination for a payoff, that while perhaps important, does not produce new features and is not very sexy. Obviously this by itself would not be the basis for inclusion in the article. But if my description of the phrase had wider currancy and was verifiable, it would provide a non-crystal ball componant for the article that would be useful.
490:- The Y2K problem turned out to be science-fiction as well, so even if this "problem" turns out to be nonsense, there should still be some evidence on the sort of nonsense it was. Furthermore, please note that i ended up reading about this issue after some research on "The Long Now" project which should be deleted as well if we do decide that such long-term thoughts are none of our business. -
359:
This is clear crystal balling folks. First off, does anyone actually believe that current software/hardware is going to be used in the year 10,000? Common sense says, No, no one will be using them in 7990 years. That said with how fast computer technology is evolving, this is fairly a null pointed
410:
There is another aspect of the phrase 'Year 10,000 Problem' that is not in this article, but could be. We use this phrase in our software development group and I have heard others use it in others groups with an ironic twist. It describes a problem that would require a systematic examination and
190:, otherwise, as people would expect to see an article on the Y10K problem.) And the comma has been discussed. I agree it shouldn't be there, and there was agreement the first time, but not the second time after I improperly reverted a move. You may bring it up again at
226:
would be reasonable. The majority of this article is still about the Y2k problem, with basically one paragraph which is actually about the "year 10,000" problem. As Uncle G's source on this also mentions the possibility of a year 100,000 problem, and as the creation of
269:
All modern computer systems store dates as a number of days since
January 1, 1900. There may conceivably be an issue in 2079, when that number passes 65,536, the number which can be stored in one 16-bit word of computer memory. The only
153:- this is a legitimate topic that has had some media exposure. Someone's going to type in "Year 10,000 problem" and expect to see something. My only concern is the use of a comma; there's no need for a separator. --
123:
I'd go even further. I doubt any computers in operation today will even exist then. It may deserve a merge to the Y2K problem where it was originally mentioned, but it certainly doesn't deserve its own article. -
52:
519:, which is already past and well documented. The remaining hypotheses and theorisations are so crystal ball (ie it won't happen for another 8,000 years) that it falls off the scale of
74:
247:) a 1998 public opinion poll about Y2K, with a footnote at the very end about the alleged Year 10,000 problem, but no references or sources to support its existence; (
319:
There are now systems that use ISO date format (the one used at the top of this discussion) internally, and you can bet that some of them assume a 4-digit year.
121:
This may not be a problem in the year 10,000, as it is unlikely that any of the technology or software in use today will still be active at that time.
82:
This article is all original research. The only sources on this are a few joke articles which were not written by reliable sources anyway. Fails
308:
True, there are other time storage formats. None of them have an issue with the year 10,000, because none are storing the year as decimal text.
564:- it's well written, it mentions the inherent humor value, and balances it with the real issues, which may not be catastrophic, but do exist.
49:
568:
556:
544:
527:
482:
456:
435:
415:
402:
390:
378:
366:
351:
339:
323:
312:
303:
278:
235:
214:
202:
166:
145:
131:
111:
94:
447:
complete and utter nonsense. Plus the problem would actually occur in the year 65536, as years are now most often stored in 16bit's. --
501:
505:
287:— If that's the premise that you based your earlier "Most of the article's just wrong." comment upon, then we have articles on
17:
255:) An essay that there might be such a thing (with no technical description of an actual issue), so we better look at it; (
583:
553:
36:
582:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
162:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
540:
267:) Another fanciful blog entry, this one purportedly from 9996 (still no technical description of the problem).
129:
83:
515:
per nomination. This is a non-problematic. The only problematic part is very addequately dealt with in the
497:
465:
228:
199:
536:
348:
274:
issue about year 10,000 is that Excel formatting routines can't handle displaying the value. That's it.
259:) A fanciful blog posting from the year 9998 (still with no technical description of an actual issue); (
140:
493:
360:
article. As someone who derives a paycheck from the industry, this is complete and utter non-sense --
155:
66:
58:
552:
and iron out any original research issues (the article does contain some referential notation).
454:
125:
70:
222:
As the nominator of this, I think that, given the sources Uncle G has found, merging this with
223:
195:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
264:
210:
sourced, encyclopaedic - article is in obvious need of cleanup, but that's not an AfD issue.
524:
412:
296:
374:. There's no reason to believe that the epoch will still be in use, much less the systems.
565:
232:
91:
399:
520:
479:
469:
448:
432:
375:
336:
320:
309:
275:
244:
108:
104:
87:
260:
361:
300:
191:
175:
285:
All modern computer systems store dates as a number of days since
January 1, 1900.
139:
per Mgm (except for the part where s/he proposes the IMHO unnecessary merge). --
516:
387:
271:
231:
is therefore possible but undesirable, merging seems the best course to me. --
211:
252:
292:
256:
73:. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see
429:"if my description of the phrase had wider currancy and was verifiable..."
335:
has sources and examples, discusses a notable computing phenomenon. -
288:
248:
107:
and bad original research at that. Most of the article's just wrong.
398:
per tha above: OR, crystal balling, lack of respectable sources.
576:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
472:
263:) A posting that actually invites responses to a humor page; (
464:- Absolute rubbish. We might as well have an article on the
347:
and do not recreate this crystal ball until the year 9990. --
535:
per above. Seems worth having per the discussion. --
75:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Year 10,000 problem
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
586:). No further edits should be made to this page.
251:) An April Fool's day post about the problem (
243:Unless I missed something, the sources are: (
8:
7:
473:
24:
523:; 2079 is still 73 years away.
88:Knowledge is not a crystal ball
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
569:20:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
557:22:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
545:16:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
528:09:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
483:15:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
457:16:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
436:13:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
416:13:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
403:05:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
391:03:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
379:19:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
367:18:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
352:16:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
340:15:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
324:01:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
313:14:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
304:14:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
279:14:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
236:13:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
215:13:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
203:13:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
186:is failing. (Would have been
167:10:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
146:10:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
132:09:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
112:05:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
95:05:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
69:was nominated for deletion on
53:21:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
50:Can't sleep, clown will eat me
1:
119:. The article itself says:
603:
431:Doesn't seem that it is.
299:that you should read. ☺
579:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
84:Knowledge:Verifiability
48:, defaulting to keep.
178:'s recent addition of
506:few or no other edits
427:There's the problem:
508:outside this topic.
466:Year 100,000 problem
229:Year 100,000 problem
67:Year 10,000 problem
59:Year 10,000 problem
451:
194:, if you wish. —
543:
509:
449:
224:Year 2000 problem
105:Original Research
594:
581:
539:
491:
477:
476:
364:
349:DrTorstenHenning
297:Time (computing)
158:
34:
602:
601:
597:
596:
595:
593:
592:
591:
590:
584:deletion review
577:
474:
362:
156:
86:, and probably
62:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
600:
598:
589:
588:
572:
571:
559:
547:
537:badlydrawnjeff
530:
510:
485:
459:
441:
440:
439:
438:
419:
418:
405:
393:
381:
369:
354:
342:
330:
329:
328:
327:
326:
317:
316:
315:
217:
205:
169:
157:AlexWCovington
148:
134:
114:
80:
79:
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
599:
587:
585:
580:
574:
573:
570:
567:
563:
560:
558:
555:
551:
548:
546:
542:
538:
534:
531:
529:
526:
522:
518:
514:
511:
507:
503:
499:
495:
489:
486:
484:
481:
478:
471:
467:
463:
460:
458:
455:
453:
446:
443:
442:
437:
434:
430:
426:
423:
422:
421:
420:
417:
414:
409:
406:
404:
401:
397:
394:
392:
389:
385:
382:
380:
377:
373:
370:
368:
365:
358:
355:
353:
350:
346:
343:
341:
338:
334:
331:
325:
322:
318:
314:
311:
307:
306:
305:
302:
298:
294:
290:
286:
283:
282:
281:
280:
277:
273:
266:
262:
258:
254:
250:
246:
242:
239:
238:
237:
234:
230:
225:
221:
218:
216:
213:
209:
206:
204:
201:
197:
193:
189:
185:
181:
180:existing code
177:
173:
170:
168:
164:
160:
159:
152:
149:
147:
144:
143:
138:
135:
133:
130:
127:
122:
118:
115:
113:
110:
106:
102:
99:
98:
97:
96:
93:
89:
85:
78:
76:
72:
68:
64:
63:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
578:
575:
561:
549:
532:
512:
487:
461:
444:
428:
424:
407:
395:
386:per above. -
383:
371:
356:
344:
332:
284:
268:
240:
219:
207:
196:Arthur Rubin
187:
183:
179:
176:User:Uncle G
171:
154:
150:
141:
136:
120:
116:
100:
81:
65:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
554:Yamaguchi先生
525:Ohconfucius
517:Y2K problem
504:) has made
494:Eyeprotocol
468:as well. -
413:Jdclevenger
172:Strong Keep
566:AnonEMouse
233:Xyzzyplugh
92:Xyzzyplugh
71:2004-11-09
400:Sandstein
293:Unix time
90:as well.
502:contribs
433:Fan-1967
376:Gazpacho
337:CNichols
321:Gazpacho
310:Fan-1967
276:Fan-1967
272:verified
241:Comments
109:Fan-1967
425:Comment
301:Uncle G
220:Comment
521:WP:NOT
513:Delete
470:Hahnch
462:Delete
445:Delete
396:Delete
388:AMK152
357:Delete
345:Delete
295:, and
289:time_t
200:(talk)
182:which
137:Delete
117:Delete
101:Delete
372:Merge
363:Brian
212:WilyD
192:WP:RM
142:NORTH
103:It's
16:<
562:Keep
550:Keep
541:talk
533:Keep
498:talk
488:Keep
452:fred
450:Dark
408:Keep
384:Keep
333:Keep
208:Keep
188:keep
174:per
163:talk
151:Keep
198:|
184:now
126:Mgm
500:•
492:—
291:,
165:)
496:(
480:n
475:e
265:6
261:5
257:4
253:3
249:2
245:1
161:(
128:|
77:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.