Which sounds worse:
- From the late 1900s
- From last century
From last millenium.
“1900s” makes me think they’re referring to the decade of 1900-1909 😅
deleted by creator
They aren’t? “Late 1900s” would be the latter 3rd of the century. 1994 would be in that latter third, so they are using it correctly.
Early 1990s would be more appropriate wording 😂
I get what you’re saying, but both work in this case, yours is just more precise. We’ve just lived in the late 1900s so it feels weird to lump the years we’ve experienced in with 900+ that we haven’t. But if someone says “late 1800s” for something like 1894, it wouldn’t feel weird at all.
Maybe, but when I hear late 1800s I assume they mean 1809ish 😅
I love to say “before the turn of the century” when referring to stuff like 1997.
In the late millennium
From now on, when someone asks how old I am, I’m going to say I was born in the late 1900s
“Oh, no, not that late, actually.”
Or at the late 20th Century…
Doesn’t work, “20th century” as a term is synonymous with “modern”. “The xx00s” is automatically “a long time ago”.
Look at this youngling, I was born in the previous millennium
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is indeed the late 1900s, and it’s 31 years ago so depending on the topic they’re writing on, it could be immensely outdated
deleted by creator
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.
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?!
sorry my bad
There is nothing wrong with it other than it makes me feel ancient and I don’t like it.
ok boomer
<3
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It’s the late 20th century, or the 1990s.
I’d take “late 1900s” as 1906-1910.
fair enough
How would you refer to a time period between 1867 and 1892?
I’m the beginning of time …
The late 19th century?
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.
I was at school so it cannot… darn it
If this was a CS major, 1994 might as well be Antiquity
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.
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.
and I was just looking at a 100Tbps backhaul the other day… that’s what, a billion times more bandwidth?
You guys remember when Sony made tiny handheld AM radios?
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?
Kids these days will be easy prey for the Goblin King.
They are just one brick in the wall…
Nickelback is classic rock.
My local classic rock station classifies “classic rock” as released >25 years ago. They play Green Day fairly regularly now
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.
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.
Bowie died in 2016. Is your clan mate like 14?
Four years ago, got it.
He got to 15 this year…
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…
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.
9/11/2001 is the date the simulation was turned on. Everything prior to that is just programmed memories and fabricated history.
The Bernstein bears is proof.
You spelt that wrong, mate.
That’s the joke. And the proof.
I personally remember it being spelt that way, but every book I’ve seen recently is spelt stain… something fucky happened with timelines.
I know, I was playing along.
I’ve also seen pictures of it being spelt in both different ways, and they both looked genuine. No idea if they were or clever fakes though
Pretty sure it’s Berenstein. You missed the second “e.” Reminds me of that scene from the old Sinbad movie Shazaam.
Yo this is making too much sense and I’m not even high
I’ll just be over here checking into an assisted living home. Don’t mind me.
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.
[Matt Damon aging.GIF]
Wow
This is incredible
I mean the 1700s is 1700-1799 so it’s just consequential
Is the final paper on the events of the early 1900’s? I feel like we need a bit more context…
