4 ms·

Saving 820 years is great, but it would be nice to define it better. From the article I not sure if they mean 820 man years in total or man years per year or so

Saving 820 years is great, but it would be nice to define it better. From the article I not sure if they mean 820 man years in total or man years per year or something else. It would be useful to know how much energy was spent to achieve this e.g. of they spent 8000 man years to achieve this it would change the perspective. Edit: grammar

itake 4y ago
- concordDance 4y ago
  "Man" is an ancient word that means both "human" and "male human" depending on context. The former usage actually predates the latter.
  - etage3 4y ago
    I think itake understands this and was making a point (an important one at that). Douglas R. Hofstadter made the same point (perhaps more eloquently) in "A Person Paper on Purity in Language"[0], which might be another avenue if you wish to understand what the parent comment was pointing at. [0]https://www.angelfire.com/rebellion/personpaper/ https://www.angelfire.com/rebellion/personpaper/
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      It is not an important point in a context like "man-years".
  - itake 4y ago
    - reportgunner 4y ago
      Same reason you used "women" and not "other people".
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- rcarr 4y ago
  all men are pigs so our life spans are only 20 years joke obviously
- vander_elst 4y ago
  I didn't mean to gender, sorry if it was perceived that way. My understanding is that this is a standard industry term. Anyway, I'll try to use human years in the future.
  - pbhjpbhj 4y ago
    "Human years" makes it sound like you're differentiating from some pseudo timescale like 'dog years'. Man years doesn't have any connotation of sex of the people involved. Ironically the person objecting is the only one projecting a gendered interpretation on to it; it's like punching yourself in the face and complaining that punching people in the faces shouldn't be allowed. "Man" is just Saxon/Old English for person (and is considered to be from at least PIE origins). My late mum used to complain about the term Chair instead of Chairman, "I'm a person not a piece of furniture", she was chairman on lots of committees.

itake 4y ago

concordDance 4y ago
"Man" is an ancient word that means both "human" and "male human" depending on context. The former usage actually predates the latter.
- etage3 4y ago
  I think itake understands this and was making a point (an important one at that). Douglas R. Hofstadter made the same point (perhaps more eloquently) in "A Person Paper on Purity in Language"[0], which might be another avenue if you wish to understand what the parent comment was pointing at. [0]https://www.angelfire.com/rebellion/personpaper/ https://www.angelfire.com/rebellion/personpaper/
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    It is not an important point in a context like "man-years".
- itake 4y ago
  - reportgunner 4y ago
    Same reason you used "women" and not "other people".
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
rcarr 4y ago
all men are pigs so our life spans are only 20 years joke obviously
vander_elst 4y ago
I didn't mean to gender, sorry if it was perceived that way. My understanding is that this is a standard industry term. Anyway, I'll try to use human years in the future.
- pbhjpbhj 4y ago
  "Human years" makes it sound like you're differentiating from some pseudo timescale like 'dog years'. Man years doesn't have any connotation of sex of the people involved. Ironically the person objecting is the only one projecting a gendered interpretation on to it; it's like punching yourself in the face and complaining that punching people in the faces shouldn't be allowed. "Man" is just Saxon/Old English for person (and is considered to be from at least PIE origins). My late mum used to complain about the term Chair instead of Chairman, "I'm a person not a piece of furniture", she was chairman on lots of committees.