Comment on Late 1900s

stebo02@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

• GreenKnight23@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  [deleted]

  source

  • stebo02@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    sorry my bad

    source
  • alekwithak@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ 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.

    source

    • dick_fineman@discuss.online ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ 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?!

      source
• quack@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  There is nothing wrong with it other than it makes me feel ancient and I don’t like it.

  source

  • stebo02@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    ok boomer

    <3

    source
• LarsIsCool@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ 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).

  To ask a question back: From 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?

  source

  • InputZero@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ 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.

    source

    • Gloomy@mander.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      I study social study and frequently use papers that are referring to Karl Marx. Or feminist literature from the 70s. Or black literature from the 60s.

      source

      • antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

        Yeah, I’d sooner say the situation is reverse, social studies would move slower and less “definitively” than natural sciences. I’m into linguistics and literature and for me it’s nothing unusual to use scholarship and materials all the way from the 19th century. Of course, when you’re working with old literature or old language, you need old materials too… To me it’s very interesting and important to know what Aristotle thought of Homer, while it’s perfectly irrelevant for a doctor to know what Galen thought of the humours or for a chemist what Newton thought of alchemy.

        source
  • stebo02@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ 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.

    source
• FeelzGoodMan420@eviltoast.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  It aounds weird, given that 1994 was like 30 years ago, not like 130 years. I’d personally say “late 90s” rather than late 1900s. If i was referring ti like 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.

  source
• zqps@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

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

  I’d take “late 1900s” as 1906-1910.

  source

  • captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    How would you refer to a time period between 1867 and 1892?

    source

    • CaptPretentious@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      I’m the beginning of time …

      source

      • Kalothar@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

        Image

        source
    • zqps@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      The late 19th century?

      source
  • stebo02@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    fair enough

    source
• yata@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  Very much depending on the topic. For specialised niche subjects, which are usually the ones students choose for final papers, literature can be very scarce, and 1994 would be fairly recent. For my specialised field the main study (which is still being cited frequently) is from 1870.

  source
• supercriticalcheese@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  I was at school so it cannot… darn it

  source