zlacker

>>delbar+(OP)
Unfortunately, I do not have the chops to debate against this, but the political ramifications would be immense. The bet (https://www.rootclaim.com/rootclaim_challenge) requires that (a) you have $100k (b) are able to successfully debate it.

I won't put $100k against this, but I'll put $10k against it, because "the truth" is worth it. I'll pool $10k into a $100k stake behind a debate team that can debate this (and validate that this is actually refutable). This is valid until 2021-03-01.

>>sargun+rp
Please clarify your date format. Is that 1st of March or the day before 4th of January? According to my European sentiment it's the 3rd of January, is that correct?

>>Torwal+Vw
Most often I see this as an example of ISO 8061 date, https://www.iso.org/iso-8601-date-and-time-format.html .

"Looking for an unambiguous calendar-and-clock format that is internationally understood? It’s time for ISO 8601."

"ISO 8601 tackles this uncertainty by setting out an internationally agreed way to represent dates:

YYYY-MM-DD

For example, September 27, 2012 is represented as 2012-09-27."

>>avmich+vz
Yep. Although I don’t use ISO8601 for time stamps when communicating online (for 2021-03-01T00:00Z is more confusing to me than 2021-03-01 16:00 PST8PDT), it’s easier to use for dates when discussing in an online forum where people may be from outside of the US.

>>sargun+PQ
nit: ISO8601 permits offsets: you don't need to always use UTC/Z. 2021-03-01T16:00-0800 works just fine.

>>grzm+nR
I can’t remember the time zone offset between PST and PDT, and when the switch happens.