4 ms·

Goddammitsomuch I hate how Google Groups displays dates on mobile. To save anyone else the pain of trying to view the desktop version of the page, on which zoom

Goddammitsomuch I hate how Google Groups displays dates on mobile. To save anyone else the pain of trying to view the desktop version of the page, on which zooming is plain broken, this conversation is contemporary and not historical. Given the subject it could have easily been a historical conversation.

agevag 3y ago
[dead]
- MereInterest 3y ago
  This is only true when there is some context establishing recency. If I mail you a letter, that is recent and may be assumed to be in the current year. If I find a letter in my grandparents’ attic, I should not assume that it is from the current year. It may have just been moved to the attic yesterday, or it may have been decades before. For a post about processors from the 70s, there is no default assumption of recency. This post is on Google Groups, which has existed since 2001, and which is a gateway server to Usenet groups that predate it. Absolutely nothing about it gives a shared context in which the absence of a year can be reasonably assumed to be the current year.
  - bee_rider 3y ago
    I think they specifically meant in the context of this site. When the title doesn’t have a date here, the assumption is more-or-less “fairly recent.” It is an odd post though, it really is like just a couple comments, and then the real content is in a link in one of the comments https://trixter.oldskool.org/2011/06/04/at-a-disadvantage/ https://trixter.oldskool.org/2011/06/04/at-a-disadvantage/ So the actual content is a 2011 article talking about historical processors.
- giantrobot 3y ago
  Only the Groups discussion is contemporary and the actual content is a decade old. Making assumptions about dates is really fucking stupid. Mind bogglingly so. Even an abbreviated year like "'23" is better than nothing.
codetiger 3y ago
Landscape mode shows the date
cwillu 3y ago
It's an odd submission, as there's very little in the discussion, and what there is, is a quote of the introductory paragraph of https://trixter.oldskool.org/2011/06/04/at-a-disadvantage/ https://trixter.oldskool.org/2011/06/04/at-a-disadvantage/, which actually goes into detail.

agevag 3y ago

[dead]

MereInterest 3y ago
This is only true when there is some context establishing recency. If I mail you a letter, that is recent and may be assumed to be in the current year. If I find a letter in my grandparents’ attic, I should not assume that it is from the current year. It may have just been moved to the attic yesterday, or it may have been decades before. For a post about processors from the 70s, there is no default assumption of recency. This post is on Google Groups, which has existed since 2001, and which is a gateway server to Usenet groups that predate it. Absolutely nothing about it gives a shared context in which the absence of a year can be reasonably assumed to be the current year.
- bee_rider 3y ago
  I think they specifically meant in the context of this site. When the title doesn’t have a date here, the assumption is more-or-less “fairly recent.” It is an odd post though, it really is like just a couple comments, and then the real content is in a link in one of the comments https://trixter.oldskool.org/2011/06/04/at-a-disadvantage/ https://trixter.oldskool.org/2011/06/04/at-a-disadvantage/ So the actual content is a 2011 article talking about historical processors.
giantrobot 3y ago
Only the Groups discussion is contemporary and the actual content is a decade old. Making assumptions about dates is really fucking stupid. Mind bogglingly so. Even an abbreviated year like "'23" is better than nothing.

codetiger 3y ago

Landscape mode shows the date

cwillu 3y ago

It's an odd submission, as there's very little in the discussion, and what there is, is a quote of the introductory paragraph of https://trixter.oldskool.org/2011/06/04/at-a-disadvantage/ https://trixter.oldskool.org/2011/06/04/at-a-disadvantage/, which actually goes into detail.