• @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        7
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Funny how time works.

        • 1995 was ten years ago.
        • 1997 was three years ago.
        • Every year of the 80s was 20 years ago.
        • 2010 was 10 years ago.
        • 2016 was two years ago.
        • 2018 was two years ago.
        • 2019 was one year ago.
        • 2020 lasted for six years, but ended three months into the year.
        • 2021-2022 didn’t happen.
        • 2023 ended just a few weeks ago.
        • 2024 still hasn’t ended. We also invented time travel. Consequently:
        • 2025 apparently started in the 1960s, and rapidly progressing towards the 1940s.
          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            01 month ago

            were it not so sad… that’d be impressive…

            nrmally tinnitus is a constant sine wave right? I’m lucky that mine is only audible at a noise floor of “super quiet” (my dB meter crapped out on me a while back and I’ve not had the money to replace it sadly)

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              230 days ago

              Good news is that if dial-up tinnitus is real, my other comment was only plausible by lucky coincidence. Got a little of the standard variety like what you’re talking about (just enough to make me care about good PPE moving forward) and thought it’d be an interesting consequence of tech exposure for old geeks.

  • stebo
    link
    fedilink
    201 month ago

    what’s wrong with this? 1994 is indeed the late 1900s, and it’s 31 years ago so depending on the topic they’re writing on, it could be immensely outdated

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      7
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      It sounds weird, given that 1994 was like 30 years ago, not 130 years. I’d personally say “late 90s” rather than late 1900s. If i was referring to the 19th century, then yea I may say late 1800s for 1894. There isn’t anything wrong with it, it just sounds weird and makes a lot of people feel old as shit. Most people would say late 90s I think. I feel that you’d get a weird look if you referred to 1994 as the late 1900s in casual conversation.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        81 month ago

        TIL I’m only 13. Hellz yeah, skibidi doo dah skibidi day or whatever the kids say now. I’ll ask my kid now that she’s older than me.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          130 days ago

          I guess I’m 23 now…time for my first Existential Crisis again! Fun times! I should probably quit my job and start my own business, right?!

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      3
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      To answer the question: The professor assumes the email referred to 1900-1910 with “late 1900s”. As this was normal 20 years ago (and still gets used). He then gets upset realising the age difference between him and his student was likely the main contributor to this incorrect assumption.

      To ask a question back: From https://www.bucknell.edu/fac-staff/john-penniman, I read:

      John Penniman is Associate Professor and chair of Religious Studies

      I would say for religious studies it should be fine. But also for other areas, why can’t you use 1994 papers?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        21 month ago

        It depends on what field you’re studying. Some fields of study, like social studies, move very quickly. So it’s not uncommon for someone studying one of those subjects to exclude research that’s even 10 to 15 years old because things move so quickly.

        A different subject, say hydrologic engineering has been studied for hundreds of years and doesn’t change very quickly. So a publication from 1994 could be just as valid today as it was then. Every topic is different and without more context the meme as is, is just meant to incite a reaction. Not to tell us about something that actually happened.

      • stebo
        link
        fedilink
        11 month ago

        I assumed they might be working in certain fields of science where the most progress is very recent so old papers will be very incomplete and sometimes even wrong.

        My field is particle physics and while a paper from 1994 wouldn’t be completely useless, I would need to check if recent papers still confirm the same results.

    • zqps
      link
      fedilink
      41 month ago

      It’s the late 20th century, or the 1990s.

      I’d take “late 1900s” as 1906-1910.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    11 month ago

    Oof size: big.

    I had to translate German papers to English. Not necessarily because I’m that old, but they were the only ones that had the information I needed. Although most of my research was based on stuff in the 90’s…

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      151 month ago

      I read CS papers from the late '80s/early '90s and it feels like unearthing cuneiform tablets. Lots of good ideas, just everything felt so raw and new.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        529 days ago

        I was just reading the first paper on TCP Vegas (TCP congestion avoidance protocol) and the tests were done with bandwidths of “over 100 Kbps” over the internet. Feels almost unreal.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          229 days ago

          and I was just looking at a 100Tbps backhaul the other day… that’s what, a billion times more bandwidth?

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    11 month ago

    Everything before 9/11 is fake news.

    Computers, never invented.

    AIDs and the cure for it, never happened.

    Bill Clinton, I mean cmon, doesn’t fucking exist.

    I’m old enough to remember when they were making all this stuff up. Like 2 whole world wars, yeah, right.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      11 month ago

      9/11/2001 is the date the simulation was turned on. Everything prior to that is just programmed memories and fabricated history.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    21 month ago

    Today in Warframe a new character dropped he is a rockstar. One guy from my clan asked me “Do you know who David Bowie is? He is kind of an old rock legend…” Bruh I’m 40 WTF?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        0
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        This one gets me, as when I learned of the concept of “classic rock”, Nickelback’s “How You Remind Me” had just came out and was playing non-stop on the “newest hits” radios.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          230 days ago

          I used to be a huge motorhead fan. One day i bought the “new” album and didn’t really like it. I still listend to the band, but less and less, and never bought a new album. To me, that is still the new album when i think about motorhead. That album is now 20 something years old.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21 month ago

        My local classic rock station classifies “classic rock” as released >25 years ago. They play Green Day fairly regularly now

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          1
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          That stings, but not quite as much as century as with that my brain now has to go through the process of determining which century when it never had to before.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            31 month ago

            Century has that human element because “last century” is where old people are from. You wouldn’t meet people from the last millennium, but you know people from the last century. It’s 100 years, that’s a lifetime. Implying that you’re from the “last” one means you’re not from “this” one. Aka, ancient.