I don't see it on mobile (Firefox Android) but do if I hit request desktop site, in case anyone is confused
Google Timer is back
11–20 of 99 posts
Re: Google Timer is back
#12Re: Google Timer is back
#13No post body was provided.
Re: Google Timer is back
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
When would you ever need a timer for 724 years?
A bug is a bug. "Why would anyone ever do XYZ" is a separate discussion. And if you write software for a living you know that there is always that one user who will do exactly XYZ.
Nope.
Undefined behavior on obviously incorrect input isn't a bug in my world. ( might be in other circumstances )
Re: Google Timer is back
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
A bug is a bug. "Why would anyone ever do XYZ" is a separate discussion. And if you write software for a living you know that there is always that one user who will do exactly XYZ.
Nope. Undefined behavior on obviously incorrect input isn't a bug in my world. ( might be in other circumstances )
You must be a C programmer.
Re: Google Timer is back
#16and .... it's buggy try https://www.google.com/search?q=timer+724+years click on start, looses most of the time
Some kind of overflow, it resets timer to 40 hours. Same thing happens with 1 year, except timer is reset to 60 hours. Another interesting observation is that "timer 723 years" did not bring timer up, but "timer 722 years" did. Update: "timer 100 hours" works, but "timer 101 hours" does not. That is 100 hours is 144,000 seconds, does not seem to be anything special about this number.
Sometimes it drops to 40hr, other times to 100hr. Haven't been able to figure out what the pattern is.
Re: Google Timer is back
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
A bug is a bug. "Why would anyone ever do XYZ" is a separate discussion. And if you write software for a living you know that there is always that one user who will do exactly XYZ.
Nope. Undefined behavior on obviously incorrect input isn't a bug in my world. ( might be in other circumstances )
"Undefined behavior consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be compiler engineers whom the language standard protects but does not bind, alongside developers whom the language standard binds but does not protect." (source: https://twitter.com/jckarter/status/1558181259314167808 )
Re: Google Timer is back
#18and .... it's buggy try https://www.google.com/search?q=timer+724+years click on start, looses most of the time
..and curiously, with the little speaker icon 'on', it produces no audio alarm for me, (firefox 103.0.2). Whereas this[1] one produces a quite notable sound.
Re: Google Timer is back
#19and .... it's buggy try https://www.google.com/search?q=timer+724+years click on start, looses most of the time
Some kind of overflow, it resets timer to 40 hours. Same thing happens with 1 year, except timer is reset to 60 hours. Another interesting observation is that "timer 723 years" did not bring timer up, but "timer 722 years" did. Update: "timer 100 hours" works, but "timer 101 hours" does not. That is 100 hours is 144,000 seconds, does not seem to be anything special about this number.
I got it to reset twice in row by using 725 years, reset to 63 then 99!
Re: Google Timer is back
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some kind of overflow, it resets timer to 40 hours. Same thing happens with 1 year, except timer is reset to 60 hours. Another interesting observation is that "timer 723 years" did not bring timer up, but "timer 722 years" did. Update: "timer 100 hours" works, but "timer 101 hours" does not. That is 100 hours is 144,000 seconds, does not seem to be anything special about this number.
Sometimes it drops to 40hr, other times to 100hr. Haven't been able to figure out what the pattern is.
725 years causes it to glitch twice