Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Knormal
Nov 11, 2001

I subscribed to Lowtax's Patreon to support the forums, and I'd gladly subscribe to a new one to actually support the forums.

Also I think we should do that secret society thing where everyone has to submit a fully nude picture of themselves to keep them in line under threat of it being released.

i am a moron posted:

If you want ‘forum goer market share’ you’ll need to figure out how to position SA as the anti-Reddit that is also worth spending $10 on. The $10 should be understood to gate the community off from the worst kind of internet posters. You should purge your mod teams of the shittier ones, ban them from posting, and do away with the probation entirely. Sometimes mods act like salty cliquey dorks and aren’t really quality posters.

If someone posts something bannable then ban them. Quit probating people it’s weak
Nah, the $10 entry fee would just mean rich lovely posters can keep coming back again and again (Seraph84), while poor posters would get kicked out after a single infraction. Probing is a good middleground.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Knormal
Nov 11, 2001

Darthemed posted:

Patreon stretch goal for an adjacent image hosting site.
That's a really good idea, gently caress imgur. Maybe make it so you can only view the images if the referrer is *.somethingawful.com to prevent leeching and keeps bandwidth costs down.

I know platinum users can attach photos, but that system is clunky. Just open it up so everyone has good local image host to use.

Knormal
Nov 11, 2001

The 32-bit time bug has been fixed for ages in all modern OSes.

quote:

Most operating systems designed to run on 64-bit hardware already use signed 64-bit time_t integers. Using a signed 64-bit value introduces a new wraparound date that is over twenty times greater than the estimated age of the universe: approximately 292 billion years from now. The ability to make computations on dates is limited by the fact that tm_year uses a signed 32 bit integer value starting at 1900 for the year. This limits the year to a maximum of 2,147,485,547 (2,147,483,647 + 1900).[13]

FreeBSD uses 64-bit time_t for all 32-bit and 64-bit architectures except 32-bit i386, which uses signed 32-bit time_t instead.[14]

Starting with NetBSD version 6.0 (released in October 2012), the NetBSD operating system uses a 64-bit time_t for both 32-bit and 64-bit architectures. Applications that were compiled for an older NetBSD release with 32-bit time_t are supported via a binary compatibility layer, but such older applications will still suffer from the Year 2038 problem.[15]

OpenBSD since version 5.5, released in May 2014, also uses a 64-bit time_t for both 32-bit and 64-bit architectures. In contrast to NetBSD, there is no binary compatibility layer. Therefore, applications expecting a 32-bit time_t and applications using anything different from time_t to store time values may break.[16]

Linux originally used a 64-bit time_t for 64-bit architectures only; the pure 32-bit ABI was not changed due to backward compatibility.[17] Starting with version 5.6, 64-bit time_t is supported on 32-bit architectures, too. This was done primarily for the sake of embedded Linux systems.[18]
It may still be broken in various apps, but everyone's still got 17 years to upgrade to a patched version. Maybe we'll even be off vBulletin by then.

Knormal
Nov 11, 2001

Arrhythmia posted:

I did that and everything is eight months old, on reddit, and boring garbage that doesn't seem perilous at all.
Try Googling it again but with more exclamation marks.

Knormal
Nov 11, 2001

orange juche posted:

loving hell fark.com still exists
I feel like every time this happens someone over at Fark makes the same post about us, like some form of quantum entanglement.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply