@[email protected] to [email protected] • edit-21 year ago2023-08-09.jpglemmy.mlimagemessage-square268fedilinkarrow-up11.99Karrow-down1153
arrow-up11.84Karrow-down1image2023-08-09.jpglemmy.ml@[email protected] to [email protected] • edit-21 year agomessage-square268fedilink
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish70•1 year agoNah man. Use 8601 for everything. They’re intrinsically chronologically sortable.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish15•1 year agoIn a programmatic context? Sure. In an “I want to be able to comprehend this by glancing at it” context: absolutely not. 2023-08-10 15:45:33-04:00 is WAY more human legible than 1691696733.
minus-square@orangeboatslink8•1 year agoWhat, you don’t remember your time in Unix timestamps? Filthy casuls.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink2•1 year agoIt’s super easy arithmetic too, just remember ”Pi seconds is a nanocentury.”
minus-square@FeathercrownlinkEnglish3•edit-21 year agoYour prayer has been answered! Hear ye: https://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_time.asp
Nah man. Use 8601 for everything. They’re intrinsically chronologically sortable.
Or unix epoch time
In a programmatic context? Sure.
In an “I want to be able to comprehend this by glancing at it” context: absolutely not.
2023-08-10 15:45:33-04:00is WAY more human legible than1691696733.What, you don’t remember your time in Unix timestamps? Filthy casuls.
It’s super easy arithmetic too, just remember ”Pi seconds is a nanocentury.”
deleted by creator
Your prayer has been answered! Hear ye:
https://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_time.asp
deleted by creator
deleted by creator