this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2025
386 points (85.3% liked)

Funny: Home of the Haha

7955 readers
44 users here now

Welcome to /c/funny, a place for all your humorous and amusing content.

Looking for mods! Send an application to Stamets!

Our Rules:

  1. Keep it civil. We're all people here. Be respectful to one another.

  2. No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry. I should not need to explain this one.

  3. Try not to repost anything posted within the past month. Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.


Other Communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] chautalees@lemmy.world 10 points 6 days ago (2 children)

YYYY.MM.DD_HH24MI.SS

e.g.

2025.09.02_1830.33

you know EXACTLY when the timestamp is referring to.

remove the time part you still got a pretty clean date 2025.09.02 which is also computer sort friendly.

the only missing component is the Timezone which I find pretty stupid TBH, because as a big Space Sci-fi fan, there needs to be a universal timecode system which is universal in the literal sense. Well technically it can never be, relativity and all, but you get what I mean..

also while we are at it, we should start teaching kids 12 digit number system, so that we get rid of the pesky decimal with a more efficient duodecimal.

Oooh, and make year 13 months with each month exactly 28 days, and the fractional remainder at the end of solar cycle is just a blackout timescape that nobody acknowledges collectively throughout the world.

[–] absentbird@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago

This got increasingly unhinged and I support all of it.

[–] olafurp@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago

False, it doesn't include the timezone information ISO datetime is best, at the time og writing that would be 2025-09-03T10:10:30Z

[–] Scotty_Trees@lemmy.world 7 points 6 days ago

annnnnnnd that's enough lemmy for the day

[–] Obi@sopuli.xyz 3 points 6 days ago

As a filmmaker I'm incredibly upset that they flipped the image, it's like it's breaking the 180° rule but worse.

[–] joyjoy@lemmy.zip 4 points 6 days ago

I prefer %a, %d %b %Y %T %Z because of legacy support

>>> time.strftime("%a, %d %b %Y %T %Z")
'Tue, 02 Sep 2025 14:06:16 GMT'
[–] Symphonic@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago

I do DDMMMYYYY, 02SEP2025. It is from Good Documentation Practices (GDP).

[–] GlendatheGayWitch@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

How does it make sense? Calendars aren't set up by date number, they are set up by month. You need to know which month you're talking about to get to the right date.

[–] Siegfried@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Most of the time you only need the day though cause months are easier to retain. It's the same reason why you wouldn't say that knowing the year is most important than the month. You probably don't need a reminder that it's 2028.

If you already know the month you only need the day. If you dont, then you need both anyway.

[–] ohshit604@sh.itjust.works -2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (2 children)
  1. It’s currently October 2nd, 2025. MM-DD-YYYY

  2. It’s currently the 2nd of October, 2025. DD-MM-YYYY

  3. It’s currently 2025, October 2nd. YYYY-MM-DD

  4. It’s currently 2025 the 2nd of October. YYYY-DD-MM


First one is my go to.

[–] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 6 days ago

3 is best. And also ISO. Most notably because if you have dates in that format, alphabetical.sort and sort by date are the same thing. You can also continue from there to increasing degrees of precision, like 2025-09-01 23:02:35 and that remains true.

[–] davidagain@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (2 children)

Please delete 4. Literally no one wants or uses it. It's just FUD for 3.

[–] ohshit604@sh.itjust.works 2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Number 4 only works in a Terminator/Arnold Schwarzenegger accent.

[–] WanakaTree@lemmy.zip 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Agreed, chaotic evil right there

[–] davidagain@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

Absolutely. Go with the lawful and/or good, but this is both messed up and corrupting.

[–] NightFantom@slrpnk.net 242 points 1 week ago (10 children)
[–] DynoNoob@lemmy.world 83 points 1 week ago

ISO 8601. This is the way.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] magic_lobster_party@fedia.io 150 points 1 week ago (9 children)

Any answer other than ISO 8601 is a red flag

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] Taleya@aussie.zone 97 points 1 week ago (7 children)

YYYY-MM-DD

:hh:mm:ss optional

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] swagmoney@lemmy.ca 67 points 1 week ago
[–] J92@lemmy.world 61 points 1 week ago (11 children)

YYYY/MM/DD is good for file locating in a single folder.

[–] davidagain@lemmy.world 10 points 6 days ago

And YYYY-MM-DD if you're all in one level because there are far fewer files.

Exactly, combining chronological and lexicographic order perfectly.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 60 points 1 week ago (5 children)

Use ISO 8601 or get out.

Except, don't actually use ISO 8601 because the T in the middle looks stupid.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] qx128@lemmy.world 37 points 1 week ago

ISO 8601 is the only true answer.

[–] Alexstarfire@lemmy.world 29 points 1 week ago (6 children)

YYYYMMDD is the best. Easiest to sort.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›