I'm with you on metric vs. standard units all day, it's downright embarrassing that we still haven't switched to metric...but Month, Day, Year makes far more sense. The numerical day of the month is pointless by itself, there are 12 of each number (except 29-31) every year so the number says nothing at all without the context. It makes no sense to start reciting a date with the least important and least descriptive bit of information. The month is the piece of information that gives the most detail on its own and cuts down on the number of words to say the date. Instead of "The 12th of May" we just say "May 12th" cutting two completely unnecessary words from British English. It also lets you know the season of the year right off the bat. If we ask when a movie, game, or book is coming out, "in March" is the best way to say it if you had to choose only one piece of data of the three. "This year/Next year" or "the 25th" give less info. We leave off the year if the future event is in the current year so that comes last naturally. As objectively as possible, we improved the date format.

[–] holgersson@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Counterpoint: be consequential and go from most generic to most specific with year-month-day.

If something is obviously in the current year, just leave the year part.

[–] BouncyBling@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago

Maybe we could make a standard out of this...

[–] MeetInPotatoes@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

I don't mind that date format much at all and I know it's ostensibly the universal standard. It makes more sense then day-month-year at any rate.

[–] Knoxvomica@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is why it should always be yyyy/mm/dd

[–] BigNote@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

While what you say makes perfect sense and is logical, the truth is that anyone who has an ounce of intelligence can easily parse this information in a few seconds regardless of its format.

This is not an argument for maintaining the status quo, but rather, is meant to put it into perspective as the deeply unimportant detail that it is.

[–] TehPers@beehaw.org 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

anyone who has an ounce of intelligence can easily parse this information in a few seconds regardless of its format.

1/4/2023

yyyy/mm/dd makes the most sense in my opinion and is the order used in ISO 8601 and similar specs (though in the format yyyy-mm-dd), but we already have enough culture-specific stuff that date formats are the least of our issues.

[–] Zerush@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

This can still be a valid option, although what in daily use is primarily interested in the day of the month, since the month takes, well, a month to change and everyone knows which it is. However, he is mainly interested in how many days he will receive his salary or how much time he has left on vacation or how many days until an event premieres. If we ask for the time, we are not interested in hearing that it is afternoon, which we already know, but rather to know the exact time so as not to miss the train or how long it takes to finish the workday. This is why the chronological order is used, seconds, minutes, hours, days, months and years.

[–] emberwit@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

If we ask when a movie, game, or book is coming out, "in March" is the best way to say it if you had to choose only one piece of data of the three.

This is only true if both people know you are talking about the future or the past (already released or not released yet) and then implies that the last or next instance of the month is meant. In other words, using just the month only works if the year is already known. Talking about a movie from 2008, the month it released does not give you more information than its year. Using just the month has very limited and short term validity. Which is fine for day to day conversation, but not for written documents or anything else that will be read more than once. In order of the highest information value it's clearly Y, M, D, most significant information to least.