<unnamed>

Public Key

npub15jk65hpq3uvh40dava93fr4gpe6ea2y9m7kvc5yxq9nj5kp6vtyqpafgh6

Profile Code

nprofile1qqs2ftd2tssg7xt6hk7kwjc5365quav74zzaltxv2zrqzee2tqax9jqprpmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuumwdae8gtnnda3kjctvqy28wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyv9kh2uewd9hsuscfcr

Publishing to

relay.snort.social

relay.damus.io

Last Notes

2023-06-07 15:16:55 UTC

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2014-04-05
📝 Original message:YYYY-MM-DD sorts more naturally.
On 04/05/2014 06:28 AM, Wladimir wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Matt Whitlock <bip at mattwhitlock.name
> <mailto:bip at mattwhitlock.name>> wrote:
>
> On Saturday, 5 April 2014, at 12:21 pm, Jorge Timón wrote:
> > I like both DD-MM-YYYY and YYYY-MM-DD. I just dislike MM-DD-YYYY
> and YYYY-DD-MM.
>
> Your preferences reflect a cultural bias. The only entirely
> numeric date format that is unambiguous across all cultures is
> YYYY-MM-DD. (No culture uses YYYY-DD-MM, or at least the ISO seems
> to think so.)
>
>
> Let's not waste any time shed-painting this. I'd like to finish this
> discussion at once:
>
> https://xkcd.com/1179/
>
> Wladimir
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
--
Daryl Tucker
daryl at daryltucker.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140405/d351d2b2/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 901 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140405/d351d2b2/attachment.sig>