1624: 2016

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
RAGBRAIvet
Posts: 130
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 12:50 pm UTC
Location: 43° 53' 03" -91° 14' 06"

1624: 2016

Postby RAGBRAIvet » Fri Jan 01, 2016 11:00 am UTC

Image

Alt: "Want to feel old? Wait."

Gerald Ford was president when "STAR WARS: A New Hope" (episode 4) was being filmed.

User avatar
Plasma Mongoose
Posts: 213
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 1:09 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1624: 2016

Postby Plasma Mongoose » Fri Jan 01, 2016 12:17 pm UTC

As of this date, there are only two people left in the whole world who were alive during the 1800s.
A virus walks into a bar, the bartender says "We don't serve viruses in here".
The virus replaces the bartender and says "Now we do!"

User avatar
Wnderer
Posts: 640
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 9:10 pm UTC

Re: 1624: 2016

Postby Wnderer » Fri Jan 01, 2016 2:31 pm UTC

http://www.people-press.org/2015/09/03/ ... -research/
The Greatest generation (those born before 1928) “saved the world” when it was young, in the memorable phrase of Ronald Reagan. This is the generation that fought and won World War II, and became the subject of a best-selling book by Tom Brokaw. Pew Research Center no longer reports current data on the Greatest generation because they now represent such a small share of the adult population (roughly 2%) that standard public opinion surveys do not yield large enough sample sizes for reporting.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3099
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1624: 2016

Postby orthogon » Fri Jan 01, 2016 2:38 pm UTC

Plasma Mongoose wrote:As of this date, there are only two people left in the whole world who were alive during the 1800s.

That depends how you frame it, though. The 19th century feels so incredibly long ago that pointing out that any of its denizens are still alive makes me realise that it was more recent than it seems. (That may well be the point you were making, in which case, carry on).
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
moody7277
Posts: 625
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 7:06 pm UTC
Location: Extreme south Texas

Re: 1624: 2016

Postby moody7277 » Fri Jan 01, 2016 2:43 pm UTC

He left off a couple of words at the end there.
The story of my life in xkcdmafia:

Tigerlion wrote:Well, I imagine as the game progresses, various people will be getting moody.


BoomFrog wrote:I still have no idea what town moody really looks like.

tmullet
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 4:30 pm UTC

Re: 1624: 2016

Postby tmullet » Fri Jan 01, 2016 5:15 pm UTC

Is this the first time we have seen White Hat's hair?

User avatar
flicky1991
Like in Cinderella?
Posts: 779
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 3:36 pm UTC
Location: London

Re: 1624: 2016

Postby flicky1991 » Fri Jan 01, 2016 5:21 pm UTC

Plasma Mongoose wrote:As of this date, there are only two people left in the whole world who were alive during the 1800s.


My favourite little factoid is that John Tyler (10th President of the USA, born 1790) has two living grandchildren.
any pronouns
----
avatar from chridd
----
Forum Games Discord
(tell me if link doesn't work)

User avatar
RAGBRAIvet
Posts: 130
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 12:50 pm UTC
Location: 43° 53' 03" -91° 14' 06"

Re: 1624: 2016

Postby RAGBRAIvet » Fri Jan 01, 2016 11:59 pm UTC

There is one woman still receiving a pension as the surviving daughter of a Civil War veteran, and a handful of widows and children receiving pensions from their husband's or father's services in the Spanish-American War (1898).

Solarn
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 1:27 am UTC

Re: 1624: 2016

Postby Solarn » Sat Jan 02, 2016 12:28 am UTC

I pretty much figured the 1996 things, but... Hips Don't Lie was 2006? I could have sworn it was earlier and Cars was later. I still see Cars merchandise around sometimes and Hips Don't Lie feels like it should have been part of my teens. When was Jenny from the Block? Paid My Dues?

kelly_holden
Posts: 33
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2014 7:27 am UTC
Location: Rural New South Wales

Re: 1624: 2016

Postby kelly_holden » Sat Jan 02, 2016 2:12 am UTC

Solarn wrote:I pretty much figured the 1996 things, but... Hips Don't Lie was 2006? I could have sworn it was earlier and Cars was later. I still see Cars merchandise around sometimes and Hips Don't Lie feels like it should have been part of my teens. When was Jenny from the Block? Paid My Dues?

There was a 2nd Cars film in '11, and it is by Disney, who are arguably still selling merchandise for a movie older than some of my grandparents. Paid My Dues and Jenny from the Block were '01 and '02 respectively.

donbock
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2014 1:13 pm UTC

Re: 1624: 2016

Postby donbock » Sat Jan 02, 2016 5:11 am UTC

Twister (the game) turns 50 this year.

User avatar
da Doctah
Posts: 995
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:27 am UTC

Re: 1624: 2016

Postby da Doctah » Sat Jan 02, 2016 6:37 am UTC

donbock wrote:Twister (the game) turns 50 this year.

Courtesy of a certain syndicated TV network: Star Trek, Batman, Green Hornet, Family Affair and Mission: Impossible made their TV debuts in 1966. Also (from my own follow-up research) Dark Shadows, Hollywood Squares, The Monkees, Rat Patrol, the Ron Ely Tarzan, That Girl and Time Tunnel, plus the first Jerry Lewis MDA Labor Day Telethon.

User avatar
Envelope Generator
Posts: 582
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 8:07 am UTC
Location: pareidolia

Re: 1624: 2016

Postby Envelope Generator » Sat Jan 02, 2016 6:47 pm UTC

I thought Night at the Museum was a Queen album or Marx Brothers movie. And I'm pretty sure some cars are older than 10 years.

Another observation: we have strip 1624 in 2016. At some point the XKCD strip number will pass the year it appears. When's that? IS IT SUSTAINABLE?!

edit edit edit: will we have witch trials in strips 1692 and 1693?
I'm going to step off the LEM now... here we are, Pismo Beach and all the clams we can eat

eSOANEM wrote:If Fonzie's on the order of 100 zeptokelvin, I think he has bigger problems than difracting through doors.

User avatar
Locoluis
Posts: 102
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 7:30 pm UTC
Location: Santiago, Chile
Contact:

Re: 1624: 2016

Postby Locoluis » Sat Jan 02, 2016 6:51 pm UTC

By February 1, 2016, I expect to post a comic depicting events dated at "February 1, 1996".

That's right. that silly story I started writing during my High School years is now two decades behind...
Sueños del Sur - A webcomic about four siblings, their family, friends, adventures and dreams.
http://sds.lgm.cl/

User avatar
Lazy Tommy
Posts: 89
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: New Jersey, USA

Re: 1624: 2016

Postby Lazy Tommy » Sat Jan 02, 2016 11:56 pm UTC

Envelope Generator wrote:Another observation: we have strip 1624 in 2016. At some point the XKCD strip number will pass the year it appears. When's that?
Assuming three strips a week, #2018 will appear on Monday, July 9, 2018.

User avatar
Reecer6
Posts: 101
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2012 12:59 am UTC

Re: 1624: 2016

Postby Reecer6 » Mon Jan 04, 2016 6:52 am UTC

Envelope Generator wrote:Another observation: we have strip 1624 in 2016. At some point the XKCD strip number will pass the year it appears. When's that? IS IT SUSTAINABLE?!


According to Wikipedia, Denmark finally got a mail service this xkcd year. Good for it. 10 years later, they will be shocked that they've had mail for 10 entire years.

CharlieP
Posts: 397
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:22 am UTC
Location: Nottingham, UK

Re: 1624: 2016

Postby CharlieP » Mon Jan 04, 2016 9:40 am UTC

Plasma Mongoose wrote:As of this date, there are only two people left in the whole world who were alive during the 1800s.


I find that very hard to believe. They'd be at least 206 years old!
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

User avatar
eviloatmeal
Posts: 571
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 9:39 am UTC
Location: Upside down in space!
Contact:

Re: 1624: 2016

Postby eviloatmeal » Mon Jan 04, 2016 12:36 pm UTC

CharlieP wrote:They'd be at least 206 years old!

How so? 1899 was 117 or so years ago, so they'd be at least... 116? Which is not absurd. There have been older people.[1] They are dead now.[2]
*** FREE SHIPPING ENABLED ***
Image
Riddles are abound tonightImage

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3099
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1624: 2016

Postby orthogon » Mon Jan 04, 2016 12:43 pm UTC

eviloatmeal wrote:
CharlieP wrote:They'd be at least 206 years old!

How so? 1899 was 117 or so years ago, so they'd be at least... 116? Which is not absurd. There have been older people.[1] They are dead now.[2]

I believe CharlieP is implying that "the 1800s" refers to the decade 1800-1809, in the same way that "the 1960s" refers to the period from 1960-1969. I have some sympathy, since otherwise there is no way to refer to that decade, but I don't think that's what most people mean or understand by it.

ETA: Historians of popular culture are still debating exactly when the 1960s started and ended. For some people they never did end...
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
eviloatmeal
Posts: 571
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 9:39 am UTC
Location: Upside down in space!
Contact:

Re: 1624: 2016

Postby eviloatmeal » Mon Jan 04, 2016 1:20 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:I believe CharlieP is implying that "the 1800s" refers to the decade 1800-1809

Yes. It's very clever. So clever, in fact, the 2000s called, and they want their joke back.
*** FREE SHIPPING ENABLED ***
Image
Riddles are abound tonightImage

dp2
Posts: 346
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 3:06 pm UTC

Re: 1624: 2016

Postby dp2 » Mon Jan 04, 2016 1:46 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:
eviloatmeal wrote:
CharlieP wrote:They'd be at least 206 years old!

How so? 1899 was 117 or so years ago, so they'd be at least... 116? Which is not absurd. There have been older people.[1] They are dead now.[2]

I believe CharlieP is implying that "the 1800s" refers to the decade 1800-1809, in the same way that "the 1960s" refers to the period from 1960-1969. I have some sympathy, since otherwise there is no way to refer to that decade, but I don't think that's what most people mean or understand by it.

There's not another way to refer to the decade, but we can refer to "the 19th century" to avoid ambiguity.

User avatar
cellocgw
Posts: 2067
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:40 pm UTC

Re: 1624: 2016

Postby cellocgw » Mon Jan 04, 2016 2:11 pm UTC

dp2 wrote:
orthogon wrote:
eviloatmeal wrote:
CharlieP wrote:They'd be at least 206 years old!

How so? 1899 was 117 or so years ago, so they'd be at least... 116? Which is not absurd. There have been older people.[1] They are dead now.[2]

I believe CharlieP is implying that "the 1800s" refers to the decade 1800-1809, in the same way that "the 1960s" refers to the period from 1960-1969. I have some sympathy, since otherwise there is no way to refer to that decade, but I don't think that's what most people mean or understand by it.

There's not another way to refer to the decade, but we can refer to "the 19th century" to avoid ambiguity.


In case you forgot already :oops: we had this discussion (in meatspace) in 1999: what to call the first decade. Generally folks seemed to like "the aughts," so perhaps "the 18-aughts" vs. "the 1800s" ?
resume
Former OTTer
Vote cellocgw for President 2020. #ScienceintheWhiteHouse http://cellocgw.wordpress.com
"The Planck length is 3.81779e-33 picas." -- keithl
" Earth weighs almost exactly π milliJupiters" -- what-if #146, note 7

User avatar
eviloatmeal
Posts: 571
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 9:39 am UTC
Location: Upside down in space!
Contact:

Re: 1624: 2016

Postby eviloatmeal » Mon Jan 04, 2016 2:14 pm UTC

dp2 wrote:There's not another way to refer to the decade

Then how do you refer to any other decade? Just say "eighteen-noughties" or "eighteen-zeroes" like you would for any other century.
*** FREE SHIPPING ENABLED ***
Image
Riddles are abound tonightImage

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3099
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1624: 2016

Postby orthogon » Mon Jan 04, 2016 2:24 pm UTC

cellocgw wrote:In case you forgot already :oops: we had this discussion (in meatspace) in 1999: what to call the first decade. Generally folks seemed to like "the aughts," so perhaps "the 18-aughts" vs. "the 1800s" ?

In the UK the most common phrase is "the noughties": nought means zero in British English, but not (as I discovered after a long and confusing conversation with colleagues in Silicon Valley) in US English. There's also the homophony with "naughty": initially it was a bit of a joke but eventually people started using it entirely straight.

The aughts wouldn't work for us - aught (or at least the dialect form owt) is to nought what anything is to nothing. It's not the eighteen-anythings, it's the eighteen-nothings.

This century is problematic in many ways - "the 2000s" could even refer to the whole millenium, and for reasons I never fathomed, people never settled on "twenty oh one" et seq, so "the twenty-noughts" or whatever doesn't really work.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
RAGBRAIvet
Posts: 130
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 12:50 pm UTC
Location: 43° 53' 03" -91° 14' 06"

Re: 1624: 2016

Postby RAGBRAIvet » Mon Jan 04, 2016 5:22 pm UTC

Some things that turn THIRTY in 2016:

Mary-Kate and Ashley Olson
The Oprah Winfrey Show
Pixar Studios ("Luxo Jr" was released in 1986)
The "Challenger" disaster
The Chernobyl disaster
Ferris Bueller takes a day off
Geraldo's career goes into the toilet when he finds nothing in Al Capone's vaults
The Intel 386 microprocesser chip
Fox Broadcasting Company
"You guys wanna go see a dead body?"
Last visit of Halley's Comet.  Only 45 years 'til next time, guys!!
The non-stop round-the-world flight of the "Voyager"
"Star Trek" visits the 20th century ("Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home")
    "Hello, computer?"
    "Just use the keyboard."
    "Keyboard. How quaint."


And for that matter, it's been *FIFTY* years since we were first instructed "...to boldly go where no man has gone before!"

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3099
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1624: 2016

Postby orthogon » Mon Jan 04, 2016 5:39 pm UTC

RAGBRAIvet wrote:Some things that turn THIRTY in 2016:

Mary-Kate and Ashley Olson
The Oprah Winfrey Show
Pixar Studios ("Luxo Jr" was released in 1986)
The "Challenger" disaster
The Chernobyl disaster
Ferris Bueller takes a day off
Geraldo's career goes into the toilet when he finds nothing in Al Capone's vaults
The Intel 386 microprocesser chip
Fox Broadcasting Company
"You guys wanna go see a dead body?"
Last visit of Halley's Comet.  Only 45 years 'til next time, guys!!
The non-stop round-the-world flight of the "Voyager"
"Star Trek" visits the 20th century ("Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home")
    "Hello, computer?"
    "Just use the keyboard."
    "Keyboard. How quaint."


And for that matter, it's been *FIFTY* years since we were first instructed "...to boldly go where no man has gone before!"

See, those things happened when I was twelve, so they actually seem a really long time ago: thirty years feels about right. What I can't deal with is that things that happened when I was an adult were twenty years ago. Is this the same for others? It's OK for childhood experiences to be far in the past, but not adulthood ones?
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3652
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1624: 2016

Postby rmsgrey » Mon Jan 04, 2016 5:49 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:
RAGBRAIvet wrote:Some things that turn THIRTY in 2016:

Mary-Kate and Ashley Olson
The Oprah Winfrey Show
Pixar Studios ("Luxo Jr" was released in 1986)
The "Challenger" disaster
The Chernobyl disaster
Ferris Bueller takes a day off
Geraldo's career goes into the toilet when he finds nothing in Al Capone's vaults
The Intel 386 microprocesser chip
Fox Broadcasting Company
"You guys wanna go see a dead body?"
Last visit of Halley's Comet.  Only 45 years 'til next time, guys!!
The non-stop round-the-world flight of the "Voyager"
"Star Trek" visits the 20th century ("Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home")
    "Hello, computer?"
    "Just use the keyboard."
    "Keyboard. How quaint."


And for that matter, it's been *FIFTY* years since we were first instructed "...to boldly go where no man has gone before!"

See, those things happened when I was twelve, so they actually seem a really long time ago: thirty years feels about right. What I can't deal with is that things that happened when I was an adult were twenty years ago. Is this the same for others? It's OK for childhood experiences to be far in the past, but not adulthood ones?



Yeah, things happening 40 years ago have the opposite effect for me than things happening 10 years ago - rather than "wow, that's a long time ago!" it's "wow, that's pretty recent" - even things 35 years ago which get "wow, that was in my lifetime?" - all the things that happened before I started taking an interest in pop culture or current events feel like they should be far older than me, while things that happened during my adult life, when I wasn't that different than I am now, feel like they should be much more recent...

User avatar
Lazy Tommy
Posts: 89
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: New Jersey, USA

Re: 1624: 2016

Postby Lazy Tommy » Mon Jan 04, 2016 7:10 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:See, those things happened when I was twelve, so they actually seem a really long time ago: thirty years feels about right. What I can't deal with is that things that happened when I was an adult were twenty years ago. Is this the same for others? It's OK for childhood experiences to be far in the past, but not adulthood ones?


Last week, I was waiting in a busy restaurant. I had a reservation, but they had given away my table, so I had to wait anyway. One of the patrons made conversation with me, and by way of consoling me, he said, "the food is worth the wait, though," to which I replied, "I know, I've been coming here for thirty years."

It wasn't until a minute later that it hit me what I had just said. The first time I went to that restaurant was indeed 30 years ago -- but that was in 1985, when I was twenty years of age. I guess I'm officially an old fart now. :shock:

xtifr
Posts: 366
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 6:38 pm UTC

Re: 1624: 2016

Postby xtifr » Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:08 pm UTC

RAGBRAIvet wrote:Gerald Ford was president when "STAR WARS: A New Hope" (episode 4) was being filmed.


STAR WARS: A New Hope (episode 4) was never filmed. Star Wars was filmed. It was retconned into being Episode 4: A New Hope.

(Saith the obviously old man...) :D
"[T]he author has followed the usual practice of contemporary books on graph theory, namely to use words that are similar but not identical to the terms used in other books on graph theory."
-- Donald Knuth, The Art of Computer Programming, Vol I, 3rd ed.

User avatar
da Doctah
Posts: 995
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:27 am UTC

Re: 1624: 2016

Postby da Doctah » Mon Jan 04, 2016 9:34 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:This century is problematic in many ways - "the 2000s" could even refer to the whole millenium, and for reasons I never fathomed, people never settled on "twenty oh one" et seq, so "the twenty-noughts" or whatever doesn't really work.


The "twenty-hundreds" for 2000-2009, natch.

CharlieP
Posts: 397
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:22 am UTC
Location: Nottingham, UK

Re: 1624: 2016

Postby CharlieP » Tue Jan 05, 2016 9:20 am UTC

orthogon wrote:
eviloatmeal wrote:
CharlieP wrote:They'd be at least 206 years old!

How so? 1899 was 117 or so years ago, so they'd be at least... 116? Which is not absurd. There have been older people.[1] They are dead now.[2]

I believe CharlieP is implying that "the 1800s" refers to the decade 1800-1809, in the same way that "the 1960s" refers to the period from 1960-1969. I have some sympathy, since otherwise there is no way to refer to that decade, but I don't think that's what most people mean or understand by it.


Indeed I am. I don't think I've ever seen "the 1800s" as a shorthand for 1800-99, unless I've misinterpreted it somewhere and never realised. The 1900s were just before the First World War, and the 2000s were a few years ago now and distinct from the 2010s. Is this an American convention? Are we actually still in the 2000s by some people's reckoning, and will we in fact be for another 984 years?
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5474
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1624: 2016

Postby Pfhorrest » Tue Jan 05, 2016 9:23 am UTC

That's a perfectly normal way of speaking to my ear. The X-hundreds is the same thing as the (X+1)th century, and also more narrowly the first decade of that century. We are still in the 2000s, even though the 2000s ended six years ago. And yes, that sounds weird and confusing to juxtapose them like that, but either sense sounds perfectly normal by itself. The only one that seems really unambiguous to me is "the 1900s", which since I grow up in the late 20th century refers to the decade at the start of that century, not the century as a whole, which is just the given default with only narrower specifications needed (the way I don't need to say "Arizona, USA" from California; the "USA" is an implied shared context). The 1800s are the century before the 1900s, which are all kinda the same thing from my late-20th-century perspective, and the first century of them isn't all that important to distinguish, but if it were, it would be the 1800s vs the 1810s or 1820s or whatever.

I think maybe which part of it is emphasized makes a difference. The eighteen-hundreds were the century before the nineteen-hundreds, but the eighteen-hundreds were the decade before the eighteen-tens.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

CharlieP
Posts: 397
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:22 am UTC
Location: Nottingham, UK

Re: 1624: 2016

Postby CharlieP » Tue Jan 05, 2016 9:32 am UTC

orthogon wrote:This century is problematic in many ways - "the 2000s" could even refer to the whole millenium, and for reasons I never fathomed, people never settled on "twenty oh one" et seq, so "the twenty-noughts" or whatever doesn't really work.


It does irk me somewhat that a large subset of people (closer to half than all or none) will say "two thousand and sixteen" not "twenty sixteen", when they would naturally say "eighteen sixteen", "nineteen sixteen" etc.

1. I wonder if some of them will come over to the side of good when we get longer years like 2021, 2027 etc.
2. I guess the linguistic shift was caused by the sodding year 2000, because people deemed it more natural to say "two thousand" not "twenty hundred".
3. Though I do remember an old episode of Third Rock From The Sun from last century, where Wayne Knight's character talked of an Olympic bid for the year "twenty aught eight". Did that pattern occur much State-side?
4. I suppose I am a bit of a hypocrite and should be talking about "twenty oh one", "twenty oh two" etc.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

CharlieP
Posts: 397
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:22 am UTC
Location: Nottingham, UK

Re: 1624: 2016

Postby CharlieP » Tue Jan 05, 2016 9:38 am UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:That's a perfectly normal way of speaking to my ear. The X-hundreds is the same thing as the (X+1)th century, and also more narrowly the first decade of that century.


Well, that's the other issue - with years (and days, and months when you enumerate them) being ordinals, the 19th Century was 1801-1900, the 20th Century was 1901-2000, etc.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5474
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1624: 2016

Postby Pfhorrest » Tue Jan 05, 2016 9:41 am UTC

Following up on my own train of thoughts from two posts back: I think if I were to speak of the "1800s" in both senses at the same time, I would differentiate the first-decade-of-the-19th-century sense as the "1800s proper". I think this belies a kind of set-theoretic modeling of years in my mind: the 1800s are a set of 100 years, and the first ten of those just went into the set by themselves, but after ten the rest got put into subsets of ten more: the 1810s, the 1820s, etc, which are all subsets of the 1800s still (so 1897 is still in the 1800s, and also in the 1890s). But the 1800s proper are those that aren't in a subset: the first ten years.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

ijuin
Posts: 1148
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:02 pm UTC

Re: 1624: 2016

Postby ijuin » Tue Jan 05, 2016 10:43 am UTC

So, as per Russel's Paradox, they are in the subset of those who belong to no other subset?

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3099
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1624: 2016

Postby orthogon » Tue Jan 05, 2016 10:58 am UTC

CharlieP wrote:
orthogon wrote:This century is problematic in many ways - "the 2000s" could even refer to the whole millenium, and for reasons I never fathomed, people never settled on "twenty oh one" et seq, so "the twenty-noughts" or whatever doesn't really work.


It does irk me somewhat that a large subset of people (closer to half than all or none) will say "two thousand and sixteen" not "twenty sixteen", when they would naturally say "eighteen sixteen", "nineteen sixteen" etc.

I guess some people just aren't into the whole brevity thing.

"Twenty hundred" is just ugly, for some reason: worse than, say, "twenty-five hundred". It's not something you'd say in another context, such as a price: you'd just say "two thousand". Maybe it's because it forces you to reunite the zero of 20 with the other two zeros before you see the number in your head.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
Eshru
Posts: 146
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 3:51 am UTC

Re: 1624: 2016

Postby Eshru » Tue Jan 05, 2016 11:23 am UTC

orthogon wrote:The aughts wouldn't work for us - aught (or at least the dialect form owt) is to nought what anything is to nothing. It's not the eighteen-anythings, it's the eighteen-nothings.
If anything, to me (and I suspect other self-centered residents of the Americas) it's more the eighteen-whatever's (suggests the whole expanse) than the eighteen-nothing's (makes me think of the '00 specifically.

User avatar
da Doctah
Posts: 995
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:27 am UTC

Re: 1624: 2016

Postby da Doctah » Tue Jan 05, 2016 11:38 am UTC

orthogon wrote:"Twenty hundred" is just ugly, for some reason: worse than, say, "twenty-five hundred". It's not something you'd say in another context, such as a price: you'd just say "two thousand". Maybe it's because it forces you to reunite the zero of 20 with the other two zeros before you see the number in your head.


A couple of days ago I was recommended a YouTube video about the different ways numbers are read out in British vs American English. According to the principles laid down therein, the number 5500 would be "fifty-five hundred" in the US, but presumably "double five double nil" in the UK.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3099
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1624: 2016

Postby orthogon » Tue Jan 05, 2016 11:51 am UTC

da Doctah wrote:
orthogon wrote:"Twenty hundred" is just ugly, for some reason: worse than, say, "twenty-five hundred". It's not something you'd say in another context, such as a price: you'd just say "two thousand". Maybe it's because it forces you to reunite the zero of 20 with the other two zeros before you see the number in your head.


A couple of days ago I was recommended a YouTube video about the different ways numbers are read out in British vs American English. According to the principles laid down therein, the number 5500 would be "fifty-five hundred" in the US, but presumably "double five double nil" in the UK.

It all depends what the number is. "Nil" is only used in sports results. If 5500 were part of a phone number it would be "double five double oh". In a model number, e.g. the Nimbus 5500, "fifty-five hundred" would be perfectly normal. I say "zero" a lot more since my Silicon Valley experience, but "five five nought nought" would also be an option.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 33 guests