No because the year is a super large time; there’s a reason people always say they take a bit to adjust to writing the new year in dates because it’s s long enough period of time that it almost becomes automatic.
For archiving, sure; most other things, no (logically, ISO-8601 is probably the best for most cases, in general, but I’ll die on the hill that MM-DD-YYYY is better than DD-MM-YYYY).
In your day to day, will you need to know the year of a thing? Probably not; it’s probably with the year you’re currently in.
Do you need to know the day of the month first? Probably not unless it’s within the current month so you need to know the month first.
Telling me “22nd” on a paper means nothing if I don’t know what month we’re referring to; and, if I do need to know the year, – well – it’s always at the the of the date so it’s easy to locate rather than parsing the middle of the date, any.
Yeah; I did. And that’s a short stop for that date being useless in the future, after the short-term use case. That’s more wild, to me, than having the least useful part of the date just be at the end where it’s easily locatable.
So you are suggesting that the month should be first because it’s more general, but at the same time the year should be last because it’s the least useful. Can’t you see why that’s really inconsistent? It would be more logical to choose a rule to follow. Either it’s sorted by “usefulness”: DD-MM-YY, or by “generalness”: YY-MM-DD.
No; I’m not. I very explicitly started my first comment with “a year is too large of a time” and the person before me noted it’s suited for “casual short term planning” (which I consider things like the dates on homework assignments and the like to be; I would argue most things that people do within a given year fit this use case. You simply don’t care about the year most of the year but you always care about the month regardless of if you care about the day of the month).
DD-MM-YYYY just simply isn’t usefulness because a month is too short a period of time for the day to be most relevant to you. In almost every case where you need to use the day of the month, you need to know what the month is. It may not be a consistent ordering but, given the average person’s interaction with dates in a society, it’s the one that matches the relevance of these values to their daily lives.
As I originally said, I can admit that – if we wanted consistency – YYYY-MM-DD is probably better (MM-DD-YYYY is absolutely worse when looking over a period of years though no worse than DD-MM-YYYY) and I could accept that as a universal form but, for day-to-day (assuming we don’t want to lose the year so these dates don’t become useless in the future), MM-DD-YYYY works really well. Consistent/logical/etc. or not, a month is simply too short, in the context of human perception, for us to care about the day of the month without the context of said month.
DD-MM-YYYY just gives me the info. I cannot do anything with, without further context (which I probably needed more, anyway), first.
As I’ve said multiple times, – in your day to day – you don’t care about the year; it’s usually going to be the same year you’re in. So put the elements is the date you care about first. At least it’s always in an easy to find location.
I never care about the day of the month unless I’m caring about the month itself. There’s never a case where I don’t care about the month; in the day-to-day, it’s the most used data point so it goes before the day of the month.
It’s not confusing, just better tailored to actual usage.
It’s fascinating to me how you quote the portion that’s right before
I never care about the day of the month unless I’m caring about the month itself. There’s never a case where I don’t care about the month; in the day-to-day, it’s the most used data point so it goes before the day of the month.
Are you going to tell me that, when reading a date off a paper you’ve been handed, you want to know the day of the month before ever knowing what month we’re taking about?
22nd – without any further context – is useful to you?
I thought you were talking about the order of importance. You’d of course put the day first, then the less important stuff, right?
Are you going to tell me that, when reading a date off a paper you’ve been handed, you want to know the day of the month before ever knowing what month we’re taking about?
22nd – without any further context – is useful to you?
I’d assume it’s the current month or the next one if that day has been passed. Like you said about the year. I get your idea and it’s smart.
It’s possible we just have different experiences; I find the month is just too short a period for me to assume we’re in the same month. I feel like, when working with dates, I’m rarely in a context where the date is prevalent to the current day (outside of the year); I’m often fielding things a few months old, etc. That’s part of why I tend to find MM-DD-YYYY exponentially more useful.
But, if that’s not your experience, I can see why it’s otherwise. That’s (obviously) fair.
I’m not sure what else I would expect if someone just mentioned the day. If it’s an upcoming event nobody would say just 25th if it’s not the next 25th. It’s the same as with saying Wednesday, you’d assume it’s the next one.
If it’s files or folders, I’d just go with YYYY-MM-DD for the automatic ordering. There neither DD-MM-YYYY or MM-DD-YYYY is very useful since it’ll fuck up the ordering. You’d want some folders and at that point you’re doing additional ordering so it doesn’t really matter what system you use if you bother to set it up.
Oh, for sure but I wasn’t really considering verbal exchanges as part of it (as very few people say the entire date in conversation. Like, in discussing getting coffee, neither person’s expecting “2024, November 3rd” or “3 November, 2024”).
Definitely; like, anything archival is just going to have ISO-8601 make the most sense which is why I’ll freely admit, if we’re choosing a single format for written date, I do think ISO-8601 easily wins out.
But, if I’m dealing with students’ paperwork for the year, I’m probably going to care about the month first. I’d it’s, say, a landlord’s check, day of the month could be used but so could the month, in terms of importance. Looking up an old text? Possibly I might care about the day first but, usually, I’m looking for something old since it’s not fresh in my memory so I’m probably going to care about the month of the text first and the day after. That was my reasoning.
But I still think ISO-8601 wins out – overall –, for sure. I should probably just try to incorporate it into my own life more, by now.
No because the year is a super large time; there’s a reason people always say they take a bit to adjust to writing the new year in dates because it’s s long enough period of time that it almost becomes automatic.
For archiving, sure; most other things, no (logically, ISO-8601 is probably the best for most cases, in general, but I’ll die on the hill that MM-DD-YYYY is better than DD-MM-YYYY).
well either you omit the year, or you start with it
americans start with the month and end with the year, which is totally wild
Why? Because you say so?
Because “context -> precision” is exactly the reason someone earlier gave as reasoning for the American system?
Because it’s consistent that way. Why not is the real question?
Everyone starts sentences with a capital letter, you shouldn’t be flinging shit mate 😂
nahh f that shit
Again, – within most use cases – it really isn’t.
In your day to day, will you need to know the year of a thing? Probably not; it’s probably with the year you’re currently in.
Do you need to know the day of the month first? Probably not unless it’s within the current month so you need to know the month first.
Telling me “22nd” on a paper means nothing if I don’t know what month we’re referring to; and, if I do need to know the year, – well – it’s always at the the of the date so it’s easy to locate rather than parsing the middle of the date, any.
that’s why I said you could omit it. did you read what I wrote?
Yeah; I did. And that’s a short stop for that date being useless in the future, after the short-term use case. That’s more wild, to me, than having the least useful part of the date just be at the end where it’s easily locatable.
So you are suggesting that the month should be first because it’s more general, but at the same time the year should be last because it’s the least useful. Can’t you see why that’s really inconsistent? It would be more logical to choose a rule to follow. Either it’s sorted by “usefulness”: DD-MM-YY, or by “generalness”: YY-MM-DD.
No; I’m not. I very explicitly started my first comment with “a year is too large of a time” and the person before me noted it’s suited for “casual short term planning” (which I consider things like the dates on homework assignments and the like to be; I would argue most things that people do within a given year fit this use case. You simply don’t care about the year most of the year but you always care about the month regardless of if you care about the day of the month).
DD-MM-YYYY just simply isn’t usefulness because a month is too short a period of time for the day to be most relevant to you. In almost every case where you need to use the day of the month, you need to know what the month is. It may not be a consistent ordering but, given the average person’s interaction with dates in a society, it’s the one that matches the relevance of these values to their daily lives.
As I originally said, I can admit that – if we wanted consistency – YYYY-MM-DD is probably better (MM-DD-YYYY is absolutely worse when looking over a period of years though no worse than DD-MM-YYYY) and I could accept that as a universal form but, for day-to-day (assuming we don’t want to lose the year so these dates don’t become useless in the future), MM-DD-YYYY works really well. Consistent/logical/etc. or not, a month is simply too short, in the context of human perception, for us to care about the day of the month without the context of said month.
DD-MM-YYYY just gives me the info. I cannot do anything with, without further context (which I probably needed more, anyway), first.
The way I justify MM-DD-YYYY is this:
Which is easier to say?
Boom, MM-DD > DD-MM
Not when you’re old… I’ll be 50 this year, they’re flying by.
So you do include the year, but just confusingly in the end?
As I’ve said multiple times, – in your day to day – you don’t care about the year; it’s usually going to be the same year you’re in. So put the elements is the date you care about first. At least it’s always in an easy to find location.
I never care about the day of the month unless I’m caring about the month itself. There’s never a case where I don’t care about the month; in the day-to-day, it’s the most used data point so it goes before the day of the month.
It’s not confusing, just better tailored to actual usage.
So the actual day?
It’s fascinating to me how you quote the portion that’s right before
Are you going to tell me that, when reading a date off a paper you’ve been handed, you want to know the day of the month before ever knowing what month we’re taking about?
22nd – without any further context – is useful to you?
I thought you were talking about the order of importance. You’d of course put the day first, then the less important stuff, right?
I’d assume it’s the current month or the next one if that day has been passed. Like you said about the year. I get your idea and it’s smart.
It’s possible we just have different experiences; I find the month is just too short a period for me to assume we’re in the same month. I feel like, when working with dates, I’m rarely in a context where the date is prevalent to the current day (outside of the year); I’m often fielding things a few months old, etc. That’s part of why I tend to find MM-DD-YYYY exponentially more useful.
But, if that’s not your experience, I can see why it’s otherwise. That’s (obviously) fair.
I’m not sure what else I would expect if someone just mentioned the day. If it’s an upcoming event nobody would say just 25th if it’s not the next 25th. It’s the same as with saying Wednesday, you’d assume it’s the next one.
If it’s files or folders, I’d just go with YYYY-MM-DD for the automatic ordering. There neither DD-MM-YYYY or MM-DD-YYYY is very useful since it’ll fuck up the ordering. You’d want some folders and at that point you’re doing additional ordering so it doesn’t really matter what system you use if you bother to set it up.
Oh, for sure but I wasn’t really considering verbal exchanges as part of it (as very few people say the entire date in conversation. Like, in discussing getting coffee, neither person’s expecting “2024, November 3rd” or “3 November, 2024”).
Definitely; like, anything archival is just going to have ISO-8601 make the most sense which is why I’ll freely admit, if we’re choosing a single format for written date, I do think ISO-8601 easily wins out.
But, if I’m dealing with students’ paperwork for the year, I’m probably going to care about the month first. I’d it’s, say, a landlord’s check, day of the month could be used but so could the month, in terms of importance. Looking up an old text? Possibly I might care about the day first but, usually, I’m looking for something old since it’s not fresh in my memory so I’m probably going to care about the month of the text first and the day after. That was my reasoning.
But I still think ISO-8601 wins out – overall –, for sure. I should probably just try to incorporate it into my own life more, by now.
Exactly. It would be like reading the minute of the clock before the hour.