What a strange and dumb question.
Or, you know, not real.
this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2024
1139 points (99.4% liked)
Science Memes
10694 readers
3230 users here now
Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!
A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
- Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
- Keep it rooted (on topic).
- No spam.
- Infographics welcome, get schooled.
Research Committee
Other Mander Communities
Science and Research
Biology and Life Sciences
- !abiogenesis@mander.xyz
- !animal-behavior@mander.xyz
- !anthropology@mander.xyz
- !arachnology@mander.xyz
- !balconygardening@slrpnk.net
- !biodiversity@mander.xyz
- !biology@mander.xyz
- !biophysics@mander.xyz
- !botany@mander.xyz
- !ecology@mander.xyz
- !entomology@mander.xyz
- !fermentation@mander.xyz
- !herpetology@mander.xyz
- !houseplants@mander.xyz
- !medicine@mander.xyz
- !microscopy@mander.xyz
- !mycology@mander.xyz
- !nudibranchs@mander.xyz
- !nutrition@mander.xyz
- !palaeoecology@mander.xyz
- !palaeontology@mander.xyz
- !photosynthesis@mander.xyz
- !plantid@mander.xyz
- !plants@mander.xyz
- !reptiles and amphibians@mander.xyz
Physical Sciences
- !astronomy@mander.xyz
- !chemistry@mander.xyz
- !earthscience@mander.xyz
- !geography@mander.xyz
- !geospatial@mander.xyz
- !nuclear@mander.xyz
- !physics@mander.xyz
- !quantum-computing@mander.xyz
- !spectroscopy@mander.xyz
Humanities and Social Sciences
Practical and Applied Sciences
- !exercise-and sports-science@mander.xyz
- !gardening@mander.xyz
- !self sufficiency@mander.xyz
- !soilscience@slrpnk.net
- !terrariums@mander.xyz
- !timelapse@mander.xyz
Memes
Miscellaneous
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Nononono, that was 30 years ago. Can you believe it? Don't you feel old?
(It actually feels like 60 years ago to me, but I'm weird.)
It feels like an entirely different life to me.
2019 feels like a different lifetime to me.
load more comments
(4 replies)
We will never* stop seeing accounts milking this same joke for more attention points
- at least not until 2050 when they’ll change it to “early 2000s”
I suddenly feel like the crypt keeper
We can't possibly be that old! I feel you've made a grave mistake
And I am the skeleton in that crypt that turned to dust just now. (58 y.o.)
Isn't this an actual thing? Pretty sure I was told by some instructor not to use references older than a decade or two. Unless the subject is very elementary older sources are more likely to be obsolete
Depends on the subject. Historians use a lot older materials more regularly for obvious reasons.
And even then it's probably not a hard rule as much as a good heuristic: the older a source is, the more careful you should be citing it as an example of current understanding, especially in a discipline with a lot of ongoing research.
If somebody did good analysis, but had incomplete data years ago, you can extend it with better data today. Maybe the ways some people in a discipline in the past can shed light on current debates. There are definitely potential reasons to cite older materials that generalize well to many subjects.
Well said. :)
load more comments
(1 replies)
In chemistry a lot of the foundational synthesis and work is as old as the 60s and 70s; people build on it, but in some cases those early papers said pretty much all there is to be said on a topic, so there's no reason to republish on it.
I've had to cite papers as old as the late 30s before, because no one has ever found anything to fix or correct about their work! Pretty impressive if you ask me, given how few tools they had.
TTT... no matter how much we don't like to admit it.
Someone left me a reply just yesterday with that date format. At first I was going to reply back that they must have made a typo, but then realized they weren't wrong. Ouch.
I started a sentence in my class with “When I was born”. A student instantly chimed in and said “What in the 19’s?” And I thought in my head, of course you idiot, everybody is born in the 19’s. It still haunts me
It still feels wrong to me, to see it written out, but spoken its different.
I feel like it works to go with say, the 1600's, which I read naturally as the 16 hundreds. But when I see 1900 I read that as the nineteen naughts, (aughts?) because so often when people are referring to periods in the 19 hundreds, its down to the decade because so much changed between each one. Or maybe I just felt that way because I'm so old now.
Maybe in another 25 years, it'll be far enough away that 1900's becomes 19 hundreds in my head.
I've heard the nineteen naughts before, but more often that point of history was described as the turn of the century, or at least it was in the late 19s. Now turn of the century could mean 20 some years ago too. I wonder if people living in the early 1900s had this problem when discussing the early 1800s?
I just pulled my back and broke my hips reading this, it made me feel so old 👴🏻
OMG
Yeah sure kid, but I was reading the news when I was 3 and your work better be damn accurate!