TWIT 752: More Seam than Bezel

Beep boop - this is a robot. A new show has been posted to TWiT…

What are your thoughts about today’s show? We’d love to hear from you!


Here is the iPad announcement podcast that @Leo referenced at the end:


roughly 10 years ago Leo was at the iPad announcement, now I watch Leo and TWIT on my iPad. One of those geeky things, that’s just kinda cool :slight_smile:


The sliding window for dates around the y2k were based on worker age. They worked out an average of 80 years for existing workers plus pensioners allowed for 20 years of further employment as a temporary solution until new systems could be implemented.


Nice to hear some balanced discussion about AB-1. Last time it was Mike E just slaughtering it. It may not be written to benefit everyone in its current form but there are far more winners than there are people who are negatively affected. I think it was Dwight who said people will choose to be exploited so you need to have some labor protections for wide scale abuse. I think it was well said.

If a vote for a repeal comes up, I will definitely NOT vote for the measure. Maybe if it was reworded however, I think even then it will lead to more labor abuse than it currently allowed under AB-1.

I don’t think this is specifically just a Y2K thing, is it. Windows has a setting for this, which it recently updated the default on. It used to default to 20-99 being 1920 through 1999 and 00-19 being 2000 through 2019. I have noticed in recent builds (not sure when it changed, maybe 1903) that the default is now 00-49 being 2000 through 2049 and 50-99 being 1950 through 1999.

That was specifically written for Y2K, for software that only used 2 digit dates, it was then adapted to allow users to keep using their 2 digit dates, even when a 4 digit date was stored.

There was an awful lot of conversion like that going on when Y2K was being fixed. Even with a system that’s been updated to hold 4-digit years, if your data had 2-digit years then assumptions had to be made to write that data into the new system, and those assumptions were different for a birth date compared to an expiry date on a life policy, for example. In 1999 it would still have been possible to have a birth date that needed “18” for the century, whereas an expiry date would be “20”. How you divided up these, and all the dates between, could store up a lot of trouble for the future unless your testing was very very thorough.

1 Like

Very nice show @leo @ant_pruitt @PadreSJ


thank you, @P_J :fist_right:t5: :tumbler_glass: