fossilesque@mander.xyzM to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · 4 months agoPi Daymander.xyzimagemessage-square101fedilinkarrow-up1727arrow-down139
arrow-up1688arrow-down1imagePi Daymander.xyzfossilesque@mander.xyzM to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · 4 months agomessage-square101fedilink
minus-squareFryHyde@lemmy.ziplinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3arrow-down7·4 months agoImagine acting superior about a date format.
minus-squarerepungnant_canary@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up11arrow-down2·4 months agoNo need for acting when the (non-US) date format is superior
minus-squareShareni@programming.devlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up6·4 months agoDD-MM-YYYY is better, but still causes issues. ISO 8601 though, now that’s a superior format.
minus-squareSemjaza@lemmynsfw.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·4 months agoAlso the date format used organically in East Asia because of the cultural habit of writing big to small. English tends small to big, so I don’t know where yanks got their date format from.
minus-squaredQw4w9WgXcQlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·4 months agoCan you elaborate on that last part? I fail to think of anything where its natural for English to go from small units to big units.
minus-squareSemjaza@lemmynsfw.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·4 months agoAddresses is the main one. But also when talking about objects and categories, e.g. “the oak is a type of tree”, not “trees have a type which is oak”.
Imagine acting superior about a date format.
No need for acting when the (non-US) date format is superior
DD-MM-YYYY is better, but still causes issues. ISO 8601 though, now that’s a superior format.
Also the date format used organically in East Asia because of the cultural habit of writing big to small.
English tends small to big, so I don’t know where yanks got their date format from.
Can you elaborate on that last part? I fail to think of anything where its natural for English to go from small units to big units.
Addresses is the main one.
But also when talking about objects and categories, e.g. “the oak is a type of tree”, not “trees have a type which is oak”.
Great examples! Thanks!