Days Since Any Date Reporter

FancyFoxy

daffy1234 wrote:
Charles12310 wrote:
…not all of us can easily remember the amount of days the months had.

Use the knuckle trick. Make two fists and count on your knuckles.

Do you think everyone was taught that? I didn't know about it until you just told me.

daffy1234

Charles12310 wrote:
And how will some dates differ from the other if February 28 is there and the rest are 30?

Not completely sure what you're asking. If you're asking how the other months are affected by february, the answer is that they aren't. Unless you care about weekdays (monday, tuesday, etc) then the dates are unaffected by the leap day.

daffy1234

FancyFoxy wrote:
Do you think everyone was taught that? I didn't know about it until you just told me.

It's just a helpful trick. Not trying to be condescending, sorry if it came off that way.

kenny2scratch

FancyFoxy wrote:
I'd say support! Days since 2000 is honestly a REALLY SPECIFIC block, and it's good to generalize things.

Days since 2000 is actually a small tip of the hat to other programming languages' way of counting time - other languages count time in seconds since January 1, 1970 at midnight. Since not many Scratchers know the significance of that date, “2000” was chosen instead.

-Rex-

Charles12310 wrote:
-Rex- wrote:
Going before 2000 would not increase lag. To workaround this, find the days since 2000 for the date you want (you can either use http://www.elapsedtimecalculator.com/Elapsed-Time-Calculator.aspx or change your computer's clock and use the days since 2000 block to do this), and subtract it from the current days since 2000.
If I were to find out the amount of days since the year AD 1, on January 1st of AD 1, do you even think it is going to not lag?

Yes, you don't need any loops to implement your suggestion. And my workaround only requires a single extra subtraction block. Even if the implementation of this block in Scratch's source code used loops, it still wouldn't lag much because ActionScript is much faster than Scratch (although it would be an inefficient way of implementing it).

smartzx

CODDERJXY wrote:
Note: If you are going to use the trick remember that 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016… are leap years.

Actually, 2000 wasn't a leap year.

Charles12310

smartzx wrote:
CODDERJXY wrote:
Note: If you are going to use the trick remember that 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016… are leap years.
Actually, 2000 wasn't a leap year.

How do we know which year is a leap year and which one is not? Sure, a leap year is every four years, but then see what confusion we have?

Even if we know the leap years and the fact that a leap year happens every 4 years after another leap year, I know it will be still difficult to detect.

-Rex-

Charles12310 wrote:
smartzx wrote:
CODDERJXY wrote:
Note: If you are going to use the trick remember that 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016… are leap years.
Actually, 2000 wasn't a leap year.
How do we know which year is a leap year and which one is not? Sure, a leap year is every four years, but then see what confusion we have?

Even if we know the leap years and the fact that a leap year happens every 4 years after another leap year, I know it will be still difficult to detect.

You don't need to check for a leap year, you just need to know how many leap years were between two dates. This is made even easier by the fact that you can compare both dates to an easy reference point (such as January 1, 1 AD/CE). If you do that, it's just

(([floor v] of ((year) / (4))) + (([floor v] of ((year) / (400))) - ([floor v] or ((year) / (100))))) // only works for AD/CE years

aking_

Charles12310 wrote:
How do we know which year is a leap year and which one is not? Sure, a leap year is every four years, but then see what confusion we have?

Even if we know the leap years and the fact that a leap year happens every 4 years after another leap year, I know it will be still difficult to detect.

Here's an easy way of remembering it: Leap years happen every year the Euros happen (European soccer tournament).

Well that only helps if you're a soccer fan but I can't think of an easy way to remember leap years other than that lol.

BIG FACTS:
Last 5 leap years:
2016
2012
2008
2004
2001

-Rex-

smartzx wrote:
CODDERJXY wrote:
Note: If you are going to use the trick remember that 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016… are leap years.
Actually, 2000 wasn't a leap year.

2000 was a leap year.

aking_ wrote:
Charles12310 wrote:
How do we know which year is a leap year and which one is not? Sure, a leap year is every four years, but then see what confusion we have?

Even if we know the leap years and the fact that a leap year happens every 4 years after another leap year, I know it will be still difficult to detect.
Here's an easy way of remembering it: Leap years happen every year the Euros happen (European soccer tournament).

Well that only helps if you're a soccer fan but I can't think of an easy way to remember leap years other than that lol.

BIG FACTS:
Last 5 leap years:
2016
2012
2008
2004
2001

2001 wasn't a leap year.

Grant70

May seem useful… Support.

--Waterfall--

Support.

Water

DaEpikDude

--Waterfall-- wrote:
Support.

Water

You should put “Water” in your signature instead of writing it on every post.
Edit: here's an iTopic explaining signatures.

Last edited by DaEpikDude (Sept. 17, 2017 03:48:14)

Charles12310

DaEpikDude wrote:
--Waterfall-- wrote:
Support.

Water
You should put “Water” in your signature instead of writing it on every post.
Edit: here's an iTopic explaining signatures.

Um, how do I even know if “Water” is actually supposed to be part of the signature or not? The user might have put it there in the post purposely.

-Rex-

Charles12310 wrote:
DaEpikDude wrote:
--Waterfall-- wrote:
Support.

Water
You should put “Water” in your signature instead of writing it on every post.
Edit: here's an iTopic explaining signatures.
Um, how do I even know if “Water” is actually supposed to be part of the signature or not? The user might have put it there in the post purposely.

Because water is completely unrelated to this topic.

Charles12310

-Rex- wrote:
Charles12310 wrote:
DaEpikDude wrote:
--Waterfall-- wrote:
Support.

Water
You should put “Water” in your signature instead of writing it on every post.
Edit: here's an iTopic explaining signatures.
Um, how do I even know if “Water” is actually supposed to be part of the signature or not? The user might have put it there in the post purposely.
Because water is completely unrelated to this topic.

But then did the user put that same word in the rest of his/her posts?

DaEpikDude

Charles12310 wrote:
-Rex- wrote:
Charles12310 wrote:
DaEpikDude wrote:
--Waterfall-- wrote:
Support.

Water
You should put “Water” in your signature instead of writing it on every post.
Edit: here's an iTopic explaining signatures.
Um, how do I even know if “Water” is actually supposed to be part of the signature or not? The user might have put it there in the post purposely.
Because water is completely unrelated to this topic.
But then did the user put that same word in the rest of his/her posts?

Yes. Go look at any of their posts, and “Water” is just there.

Charles12310

DaEpikDude wrote:
Charles12310 wrote:
-Rex- wrote:
Charles12310 wrote:
DaEpikDude wrote:
--Waterfall-- wrote:
Support.

Water
You should put “Water” in your signature instead of writing it on every post.
Edit: here's an iTopic explaining signatures.
Um, how do I even know if “Water” is actually supposed to be part of the signature or not? The user might have put it there in the post purposely.
Because water is completely unrelated to this topic.
But then did the user put that same word in the rest of his/her posts?
Yes. Go look at any of their posts, and “Water” is just there.

Well, if that if the case, we should tell them on their profile.

DaEpikDude

Charles12310 wrote:
DaEpikDude wrote:
-snip-
Well, if that if the case, we should tell them on their profile.

Someone already did…

enderscratch224

(This thread is dead)

Discuss Scratch