I love to say “before the turn of the century” when referring to stuff like 1997.
Late 1900s
Submitted 6 days ago by ickplant@lemmy.world to [deleted]
https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/3fb40127-072e-4a06-9e0a-39e8cc52e778.jpeg
Comments
SmoothLiquidation@lemmy.world 6 days ago
HK65@sopuli.xyz 6 days ago
In the late millennium
rottingleaf@lemmy.world 4 days ago
Before computing got poisoned.
stebo02@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 days 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is indeed the late 1900s, and it’s 31 years ago so depending on the topic they’re writing on, it could be immensely outdated
GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 5 days ago
…it’s 31 years ago
fuck you. 1994 was 10 years ago, not 30.
stebo02@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 days ago
sorry my bad
alekwithak@lemmy.world 5 days 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.
quack@lemmy.zip 5 days ago
There is nothing wrong with it other than it makes me feel ancient and I don’t like it.
stebo02@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 days ago
ok boomer
<3
LarsIsCool@lemmy.world 6 days 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?
InputZero@lemmy.world 5 days 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.
stebo02@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 days 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.
FeelzGoodMan420@eviltoast.org 5 days 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.
zqps@sh.itjust.works 5 days ago
It’s the late 20th century, or the 1990s.
I’d take “late 1900s” as 1906-1910.
captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 4 days ago
How would you refer to a time period between 1867 and 1892?
stebo02@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 days ago
fair enough
yata@sh.itjust.works 5 days 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.
supercriticalcheese@lemmy.world 5 days ago
I was at school so it cannot… darn it
Nurse_Robot@lemmy.world 6 days ago
From now on, when someone asks how old I am, I’m going to say I was born in the late 1900s
Jerkface@lemmy.world 6 days ago
“Oh, no, not that late, actually.”
mmddmm@lemm.ee 6 days ago
Or at the late 20th Century…
Lumidaub@feddit.org 6 days ago
Doesn’t work, “20th century” as a term is synonymous with “modern”. “The xx00s” is automatically “a long time ago”.
kameecoding@lemmy.world 5 days ago
Look at this youngling, I was born in the previous millennia
SpiceDealer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 days ago
If this was a CS major, 1994 might as well be Antiquity
uuldika@lemmy.ml 5 days 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.
xavier666@lemm.ee 4 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.
rottingleaf@lemmy.world 4 days ago
Because Signal surely isn’t based on works from 80s, yes.
werefreeatlast@lemmy.world 4 days ago
You guys remember when Sony made tiny handheld AM radios?
cm0002@lemmy.world 6 days ago
And how kind of you to share that with us here. On Lemmy. That skews older.
(sad) lmao
bobs_monkey@lemm.ee 6 days ago
Hey now, 1995 will always be 10 years ago. Always.
rtxn@lemmy.world 6 days 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 takes place in the 1960s, rapidly progressing towards the 1940s.
cm0002@lemmy.world 6 days ago
I can still hear the dialup tone in my brainnnnnnn
tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip 6 days ago
I finally was able to readjust my brain into believing 1995 was longer than 10 years ago. I’m now convinced it was 20 years ago.
Bruncvik@lemmy.world 6 days ago
I first played Doom in 1995. And SimCity 2000. It indeed feels like 10 years ago.
BarrelAgedBoredom@lemm.ee 6 days ago
I was born in 96. I’ll be turning 30 next year
BakerBagel@midwest.social 6 days ago
Damn, I’ve got the heaviest drinking pattern of any 10 year old you ever seen then.
Droggelbecher@lemmy.world 5 days ago
Since this was true when I was in primary school, it’ll always be seared into my brain. I mean, I realized this when I was learning to count and spell, of course it’s saved as one of the most basic facts of life. Like, 4+4=8, 90s are 10 years ago 70s are 30 years ago etc was stuff learned at the same time, so it’s like it’s saved in a similar way.
S_H_K@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 days 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?
Lumidaub@feddit.org 6 days ago
Kids these days will be easy prey for the Goblin King.
S_H_K@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 days ago
They are just one brick in the wall…
slaneesh_is_right@lemmy.org 5 days ago
Nickelback is classic rock.
Trainguyrom@reddthat.com 5 days ago
My local classic rock station classifies “classic rock” as released >25 years ago. They play Green Day fairly regularly now
Jayjader@jlai.lu 5 days 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.
Broadfern@lemmy.world 6 days ago
Bowie died in 2016. Is your clan mate like 14?
Klear@lemmy.world 5 days ago
Four years ago, got it.
S_H_K@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 days ago
He got to 15 this year…
Maggoty@lemmy.world 5 days ago
I’ll just be over here checking into an assisted living home. Don’t mind me.
BreadOven@lemmy.world 6 days 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…
GluWu@lemm.ee 6 days 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.
KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 6 days ago
9/11/2001 is the date the simulation was turned on. Everything prior to that is just programmed memories and fabricated history.
ironhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 6 days ago
The Bernstein bears is proof.
FrChazzz@lemm.ee 6 days ago
Yo this is making too much sense and I’m not even high
ChillPill@lemmy.world 6 days ago
[Matt Damon aging.GIF]
FreeBeard@slrpnk.net 6 days ago
I always wondered what would happen if you cite an original source of something we consider common sense now. What would nature say if you use conservation of momentum and cite Isaac Newton and the Principia Mathematica.
What if you quote something in latin. For most of science history this was completely normal.
Proprietary_Blend@lemmy.world 6 days ago
Wow
lugal@sopuli.xyz 6 days ago
I mean the 1700s is 1700-1799 so it’s just consequential
Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 6 days ago
It’s the final paper on the events of the early 1900’s? I feel like we need a bit more context…
sittinonatoilet@sopuli.xyz 6 days ago
This is incredible
some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 6 days ago
“Actually, 1994 is the only year that is excluded in this history course.”
Klear@lemmy.world 5 days ago
Literally 10 years too late.
NikkiDimes@lemmy.world 5 days ago
💀
KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 6 days ago
Which sounds worse:
Venator@lemmy.nz 6 days ago
“1900s” makes me think they’re referring to the decade of 1900-1909 😅
Retropunk64@lemmy.world 5 days ago
Because the student is misusing the term.
can@sh.itjust.works 6 days ago
Not what you asked, but I find turn of the century most jarring.
db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 days ago
Turn of the millennium?