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’ll just be over here checking into an assisted living home. Don’t mind me.
💀
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is indeed the late 1900s, and it’s 31 years ago so depending on the topic they’re writing on, it could be immensely outdated
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 31 years ago
fuck you. 1994 was 10 years ago, not 30.
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
It’s the late 20th century, or the 1990s.
I’d take “late 1900s” as 1906-1910.
fair enough
I was at school so it cannot… darn it
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.
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.
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?
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.
Kids these days will be easy prey for the Goblin King.
They are just one brick in the wall…
Bowie died in 2016. Is your clan mate like 14?
Four years ago, got it.
He got to 15 this year…
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 😅
Because the student is misusing the term.
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 😂
Not what you asked, but I find turn of the century most jarring.
Turn of the millennium?
That stings, but not quite as much as century as with that my brain now has to go through the process of determining which century when it never had to before.
Century has that human element because “last century” is where old people are from. You wouldn’t meet people from the last millennium, but you know people from the last century. It’s 100 years, that’s a lifetime. Implying that you’re from the “last” one means you’re not from “this” one. Aka, ancient.
you never learnt about stuff that took place a bit after the industrial revolution?
You’re right. @abigscaryhobo@lemmy.world put it better.
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…
Look at this youngling, I was born in the previous millennium
Doesn’t work, “20th century” as a term is synonymous with “modern”. “The xx00s” is automatically “a long time ago”.
I love to say “before the turn of the century” when referring to stuff like 1997.
In the late millennium
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…
Is the final paper on the events of the early 1900’s? I feel like we need a bit more context…
And how kind of you to share that with us here. On Lemmy. That skews older.
(sad) lmao
Hey now, 1995 will always be 10 years ago. Always.
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 apparently started in the 1960s, and rapidly progressing towards the 1940s.
I can still hear the dialup tone in my brainnnnnnn
My tinnitus can negotiate a V.92 handshake.
were it not so sad… that’d be impressive…
nrmally tinnitus is a constant sine wave right? I’m lucky that mine is only audible at a noise floor of “super quiet” (my dB meter crapped out on me a while back and I’ve not had the money to replace it sadly)
can confirm that it’s a constant sine wave, at least for me.
i blew myself up by accident a month ago, and while my left ear has fully recovered my right one wasn’t so lucky. lost all hearing above like 10kHz (which isnt really noticeable, especially with my left ear still being good on frequencies), and i also now have some very minor tinnitus there. ironically if i had to guesstimate the frequency of my tinnitus it would be around 12 kHz, which is past my hearing range, though it can change briefly because of external stimuli.
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.
This is borderline acceptable.
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.
I first played Doom in 1995. And SimCity 2000. It indeed feels like 10 years ago.
I was born in 96. I’ll be turning 30 next year
Damn, I’ve got the heaviest drinking pattern of any 10 year old you ever seen then.
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.
Pretty sure it’s Berenstein. You missed the second “e.” Reminds me of that scene from the old Sinbad movie Shazaam.
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
Yo this is making too much sense and I’m not even high
[Matt Damon aging.GIF]
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.
This is incredible
