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.
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.
Exactly. It would be like reading the minute of the clock before the hour.