• Dave@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      What’s the cutoff? My instinct is 1975 but then that gives a 50 year period for ‘mid’ and only 25 each for ‘early’/‘late’. So is the cutoff between mid and late 1966?

      • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        I feel like early, middle and late aren’t continuous, and there’s gaps.
        I don’t think 1932 is early or mid 1900s.

        Kinda like how young, old and middle aged don’t have an immediate cutoff. A 31 year old is neither young nor middle aged, and a 54 year old is past middle aged, but they aren’t old yet.

        • Dave@lemmy.nz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          Hmm, I normally say (since I turned 30) that 0-29 are young, 30-59 is middle aged, and 60-89 is old (90+ is super old/ancient 😆).

          • LillyPip@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            10 months ago

            This hurts nearly as much as the OP.

            Middle-aged starts at 30?! Fuck I’m old. At 53, middle-age didn’t start til 45, 75-89 is old, and I’d put super old at 95+.

            Then again, I may be skewed a bit since my 88 year old dad is sharper than most people I know, still works his regular job in aerospace, and drives Uber in his spare time to keep himself young. He may live to 120 at this rate.

            • Dave@lemmy.nz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              10 months ago

              The problem with your scale is it’s all over the place. If middle age doesn’t start until 45 then is 44 young? Why are there 44 years of young, 30 years of middle age, and only 15 years of old?

              Is this some imperial age measurement?

              • LillyPip@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                10 months ago

                Because human life, aging, and experience aren’t linear, they’re logarithmic.

    • bobs_monkey@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      Gotta wonder if this how people born in 1880/1890 felt when/if people in the 1920’s referred to 1894 as the late 1800’s

  • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    Had a class where the cutoff was 17 years IIRC so it’s entirely possible that sources from the 90s aren’t accepted in their class.

    • Synthuir@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      Yeah, I looked at this and wondered what was so surprising about the text; I’m the same age as this incredible paper and I’ve regularly had professors that wouldn’t accept something that old. To be honest, what I landed on is OOP is also a ‘94 baby who’s teaching their first class.

    • Linssiili@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      My partner had to write a paper about some medical procedure that was invented in early 1900s, and they had to use at least two “original research that is at most 2 years old”. The whole course was a clusterfuck.

  • danikpapas@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    I might be retarded but what’s wrong with the post? The year is specified quite unconventionally, but that’s all i can see.

    • kattenluik@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      The student implies the late 1900’s was very long ago, and the Twitter poster found that hurtful possibly in a joking matter.

  • dodgy_bagel@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    It depends on the field.

    In an intro to physics course, I’ve cited the Principia before without issues.

    I’ve also cited the Cyropaedia in a philosophy course.

    I got a significant penalty for citing a 2013 article for a software design paper.

    • Flax@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      Reminds me of someone asking how to cite the Bible. Whether or not you can just go “John 3:16” or “His Majesty King James VI of Scotland and I of England, Ireland and France - 1611 ‘Authorised Version’ Translation of The Bible - John Chapter Three Section 16”

      Although if you were directly quoting it, I think stating the translation would be more important than if you were referencing it.

      • dodgy_bagel@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        Tranations are important, and with the Cyropaedia I did need to use the translation. For the Principia, because I wanted to flex, I provided my own translation. I could have cited the text book, but that would be less fun.

      • Artyom@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        The Bible, The Lord; 0 AD

        Be bold, dare your teacher to dock you points for it.

      • Tavarin@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        Not OP, but attend undergrad. When I was in undergrad I specialized in chemistry, but I still needed to take breadth requirement courses in humanities and social sciences. So I did papers in chemistry, physics, statistics, political theory, ancient Greek history, and English throughout my undergrad.

      • dodgy_bagel@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        I’m working on my third bachelor’s degree.

        Turns out, a degree in the classics pays absolute shit, and math teachers are still paid shit, albeit slightly more than Starbucks. It turns out I hate children more than anticipated.