• stebo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    50
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 hours ago

    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is indeed the late 1900s, and it’s 31 years ago so depending on the topic they’re writing on, it could be immensely outdated

    • quack@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      6 hours ago

      There is nothing wrong with it other than it makes me feel ancient and I don’t like it.

    • LarsIsCool@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      42
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 hours ago

      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?

      • InputZero@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        6 hours ago

        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.

      • stebo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        9 hours ago

        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.

    • yata
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      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.

  • Lucidlethargy
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    9 hours ago

    Is the final paper on the events of the early 1900’s? I feel like we need a bit more context…

  • S_H_K@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    13 hours ago

    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?

    • Venator@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      62
      ·
      17 hours ago

      “1900s” makes me think they’re referring to the decade of 1900-1909 😅

    • can
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      17 hours ago

      Not what you asked, but I find turn of the century most jarring.

        • can
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          edit-2
          16 hours ago

          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.

          • abigscaryhobo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            14 hours ago

            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.

  • BreadOven@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    14 hours ago

    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…

  • cm0002@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    17 hours ago

    And how kind of you to share that with us here. On Lemmy. That skews older.

    (sad) lmao

      • Droggelbecher@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        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.

      • rtxn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        69
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        16 hours ago

        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.
          • grillgamesh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            14 hours ago

            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)

            • brachypelmasmithi@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 hours ago

              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.

      • tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        16 hours ago

        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.

  • GluWu@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    16 hours ago

    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.

    • KoboldCoterie@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      15 hours ago

      9/11/2001 is the date the simulation was turned on. Everything prior to that is just programmed memories and fabricated history.

          • ironhydroxide
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 hours ago

            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.

            • D_C@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              2 hours ago

              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

  • FreeBeard@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    Deutsch
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    17 hours ago

    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.