I know that this image has been around, but if you look at the first couple of posts, the date is 1969, that cant be right, I was jst wondering if this is a glitch on my computer alone, or all computers, lol:
All the really early images have that date on them. Maybe when they were uploaded the comment dates hadn't been implemented yet? But to answer your Q I'm sure everybody sees the same thing.
01/01/1970 is the default time on some platforms - sometimes referred to as the Unix Epoch. Some platforms can go back earlier depending on their 32-bit integer support ( I think). Anyway... the point is that in many applications if the function you are using doesn't recognise the data as a valid timestamp, it treats it as a null value and pulls through that default date.
Maybe this is what happened on the earlier comments....?
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." Bertrand Russell
Just went back and read my post. It's a little bit confusing. What I'm trying to say is that 1st Jan 1970 is exactly half way between the two usual ranges of 13th Dec 1901 and 19th Jan 2038. Therefore 01/01/1970= zero and anything either side is plus or minus.
Therefore the value returned if the scripting doesn't recognise the data is null or zero, so it shows 01/01/1970. Have I confused things further?
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." Bertrand Russell
Well that's pretty close. Technically I've set the unix date fro those comments to zero, so when I produce the formatted date with make_pretty_date(0) I get the date at which unix time started.
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." Bertrand Russell
Check this out