> 02005, 02010

Are you planning for this comment to be relevant for long enough that the leading zeros will be helpful for disambiguation?

▲

201984 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

He does it to get somebody to comment, and it worked this time.

	▲	kragen 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I wish people would comment about transactions, optimistic synchronization, CSP, actors, priority inversion, Fraser's astounding code (https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/research/srg/netos/projects/archive...) etc., but I guess we each do what we can, and you have to meet people where they are. I probably couldn't have posted a comment any better than yours when I was 12, and maybe you're 12, so maybe you can't do any better. Hopefully, eventually, you will. Remember! Brawndo: It's What Plants Crave.

▲

lann 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Clearly they are referring to the years 1029 and 1032 (decimal). I just want to know what calendar system they're using...

	▲	kragen 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Since the reunification of China under the most glorious of all the dynasties, perhaps? Or the founding of Chichén Itzá?

▲

kragen 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I try not to post comments that won't be relevant 8000 years in the future.

▲

hazn 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

interesting, the notation also implies 2005 and 2010 A.D and not B.C, or maybe the notation is about exactly A.D? either way, interesting choice if it was intentional. we say “year 515” without disambiguation right