this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2023
1902 points (93.0% liked)
Memes
45187 readers
1460 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Do people outside of the US not say dates like "June first" etc? M/D/Y matches that. It's really not weird at all, even if the international ambiguity is awful.
In Danish, it's said like 1st of June.
Flemish here (aka dutch-speaking). We say first June, sixth November etc. English isn't our native language, so M/D/Y is weird as fuck and completely illogical to us.
Yes it is objectively weird.
When you write down "07/01/1967" are you unaware that it is unclear whether you're referring to July 1st or January 7th?
And despite the fact that you're writing something down for the express purpose of communicating information, and you're choosing to shorten it's written format to save time and space, you're ok with either
a) just leaving it ambiguous and communicating poorly
or
b) having to write extra words to give it context, taking up more space than just writing out "July 1st, 1967"?
1967/06/01 clearly communicates we're starting with the year and going biggest to smallest time increments. There is no ambiguity as to which order it's ever in, and it's far shorter than the full written date.
At a fundamental user experience level, it is objectively nonsensical to choose the American date format when your goals are 1) clearly communicating a date and 2) doing it shorter than writing out the words.
I like to do YYDDMM because I'm a monster.
It's not unclear to americans. "Objectively" is hilarious here. If it's in the format people expect, then it's perfectly fine in context. Sorry that US traditions don't suit your fancy.
It's definitely confusing in an international context, but well-estsblished conventions don't change easily.
Yes, if you chose the objectively wrong way of doing something and then tell everyone that you're always going to do it the wrong way, then yes, people will expect you to do it the dumb way. Congratulations. That's how choosing a protocol works. That doesn't mean that some protocols aren't objectively worse than others.
It's hilarious that you think "objective" is hilarious, given that you're reasoning is based 100% on the subjective experiences of Americans.
That's how formats work, I hate to break it to you. The ambiguity sucks, but the format itself makes perfect sense given the way americans say dates.
We all say dates the same.
It's objectively dumb because it's the format that results in ambiguity. Again, the point that it's good cause Americans are familiar with it is a subjective criteria, since it only applies to American's experience with using it, whereas the ambiguity of an out of order time span is an objective one.
Only the combination of formats results in ambiguity. Neither format is ambiguous on its own.
Standardization is good, and if someone were to change it should probably be the US given the apparent worldwide consensus otherwise. That doesn't make either format good or bad on its own.
What I take issue with is people acting like the US format is some kind of bizarro nonsense when it in fact makes perfect sense in terms of matching spoken dates. That is hardly a weird basis for a format.
Each has its tradeoffs, and which set of tradeoffs is better is a subjective matter. I agree that d/m/y makes the most sense for an international standard (if not y/m/d), but to claim that the US format itself is somehow objectively bad is silly.
It objectively is, and Ive explained why numerous times.
If you don't have an argument beyond 'it makes sense cause we're used to it', then you don't have an argument about why one is better than the other, you have a weakass dodge the conversation feelgoodism. It is the textbook definition of a subjective criteria.
Learn how to be fucking wrong gracefully. Jesus Christ.
You haven't explained what is objectively wrong other than you don't like it. My argument is more than just being used to it, closely matching verbal convention is useful.
Also, it's funny that you think I'm arguing either is objectively better than the other.
No, it's not, because even in the states you say it like three different ways and the English language is constantly changing and inherently has no rules on what order you need to say them in. The choice of which way to express the 1st of January in the English language is purely a subjective one.
And I have explained what is objectively wrong with it, it's out of order from a numerical time length standpoint.
How is a lack of magnitude order objectively wrong? A date format is ultimately a language feature, and the US format successfully transmits the needed info just fine within its natural context.
It may seem objective from your perspective, but language is used in many more contexts than those you are familiar with.
Because the English language has no set order to express the 1st of January.
Time lengths are objective, the way we talk about the fifth of November is not.
You don't know what objectively means because you're entirely up to your neck in bias. You care way too much about this thing that does not matter to remotely have an objective view here. It doesn't matter if you think you're being objective, this is clearly some sort of obsession for you.
Lmao bruh, if you don't want to talk about time codes, don't participate in a discussion about time codes.
My god, learn to accept that Americans can be objectively stupid sometimes instead of getting all weirdly defensive.
In Germany we say things like "we meet on the twelfth fifth" (Zwölfter Fünfter), which is the twelfth day of the fifth month. Often times the year is also shortened to only the last two digits, so it could be twelfth fifth twenty-four in dd-mm-yy format.
Of course we also use the names of the months, but sometimes we just number them.