Amazon is running a Prime Day sale on July 15 and 16. Setting aside the fact that this is two separate days, neither 715 nor 716 are prime numbers. They should’ve done 7/19 instead.
167 is prime though?
Amazon should've made Prime Day fall on a date corresponding to an actual three-digit prime number.
Submitted 3 months ago by booly@sh.itjust.works to showerthoughts@lemmy.world
Comments
perviouslyiner@lemmy.world 3 months ago
synae@lemmy.sdf.org 3 months ago
Please don’t ascribe any more meaning to prime day other than a cynical late-stage-capitalist plot for money to flow from the masses to bezos.
booly@sh.itjust.works 3 months ago
No, I’m taking back the word “prime” from a company that shouldn’t have exclusive rights to define the term. I’m not going to cede that territory just because I don’t like the company.
synae@lemmy.sdf.org 3 months ago
seems like the opposite, I’d suggest to stop reminding people that amazon prime day is a thing
Euphorazine@lemmy.world 3 months ago
July 16th is the 197th day of the year on non leap years. July 17th is the 199th day of the year on leap years.
Both of those are prime.
Flax_vert@feddit.uk 3 months ago
What about people using the normal date system
booly@sh.itjust.works 3 months ago
ISO 8601 is the only normal date system.
EmoDuck@sh.itjust.works 3 months ago
How the hell is 717 not a prime number? Who fucked that up? I vote we just change that
olafurp@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Divisible by 3. Easy to check since 7 + 1 + 7 = 15 which is divisible by 3.
FeatherConstrictor@sh.itjust.works 3 months ago
Oh awesome that’s a neat trick I’ve never seen before. How does that work? For a number like 700 for example, 7 + 0 + 0 = 7 but 700 is visible by 10.
ch00f@lemmy.world 3 months ago
How often do prime numbers occur in epoch time?
booly@sh.itjust.works 3 months ago
Well the convention was to store it as a 32 bit signed integer, so that is any number from -2^31 to (2^31 - 1). Prime numbers are formally defined as a subset of whole numbers, so let’s ignore the negative numbers and the number zero.
Fun fact: the largest signed 32-bit integer is itself a prime. And the wikipedia page lists it as the 105,097,565th prime.
By the time we hit the 2038 problem, there will have been about 105 million seconds since 1970 where the Unix time was a prime number. And it’s a 10-digit number in base 10, where prime frequency is something about 4% of the numbers.
Does that answer your question about prime frequency today? Eh, I’m sure someone else can figure that out. If not, I’ll probably have to wait until I’m in front of a computer.
odium@programming.dev 3 months ago
dd/mm/yyyy
1607 is prime
hddsx@lemmy.ca 3 months ago
I maintain that dd/mm/yyyy and mm/dd/yyyy are stupid.
Big -> small is how we read numbers:
yyyy/mm/dd
Old_Jimmy_Twodicks@sh.itjust.works 3 months ago
I prefer the simple dy/my/dy/my format (with the year reversed for added ease of use). For example, today would be 14/02/70/72.
NIST and ISO have stopped responding to my emails, but I’m optimistic that the Türk Standardları Enstitüsü will eventually adopt it as their preferred standard.
davidgro@lemmy.world 3 months ago
ISO8601 club
Nurse_Robot@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Yeah, but you have to admit mm/dd/yyyy is way more stupid. Small -> big makes more sense than middle -> small -> big
booly@sh.itjust.works 3 months ago
Yes, and recurring dates naturally drop the year, so MM/DD better fits that general rule.
esc27@lemmy.world 3 months ago
What if we just count all the nanoseconds since 1601 and divide by 100.
some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 3 months ago
^^ This is the only acceptable way to write out the date numerically. I’ll die on this hill.
fubbernuckin@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Yes but small is more relevant since you’re more likely to know the big. therefore i propose we put minutes ahead of hours.
Artyom@lemm.ee 3 months ago
You mean YYYY-MM-DD right? Right?!?
odium@programming.dev 3 months ago
That would not give a prime number