• masterspace@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

    • zagaberoo@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • masterspace@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

        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.

        • zagaberoo@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • masterspace@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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.

            • zagaberoo@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • masterspace@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                What I take issue with is people acting like the US format is some kind of bizarro nonsense

                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.

                • zagaberoo@beehaw.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  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.

                  • masterspace@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    My argument is more than just being used to it, closely matching verbal convention is useful.

                    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.

                • Jessper@beehaw.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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.

                  • masterspace@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    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.