111–120 of 187 posts
The Human Palindrome will be born tomorrow and die on 2121-12-12 at the age of 101. And in true palindromic fashion, his life will start and end with diapers.
Any responsible parent will call him Bob or Anna, of course. Taking surnames into account is going to be a bit harder. Here's a good resource for anyone becoming a parent today: https://parentinghealthybabies.com/palindrome-names/
> The Human Palindrome will be born tomorrow and die on 2121-12-12 at the age of 101. And in true palindromic fashion, his life will start and end with diapers. Amazingly, my last comment swapping "his" with "their" was flagged to death. If we're ever going to be more embracing of people other than men, it's gotta start with us. We can't just mis-gender and then pat ourselves on the back thinking we're doing somethin…
If the author of the joke decides to use male pronouns for his hypothetical person, then so be it. There's nothing to be gained by "correcting" that.
> The Human Palindrome will be born tomorrow and die on 2121-12-12 at the age of 101. And in true palindromic fashion, his life will start and end with diapers. Amazingly, my last comment swapping "his" with "their" was flagged to death. If we're ever going to be more embracing of people other than men, it's gotta start with us. We can't just mis-gender and then pat ourselves on the back thinking we're doing somethin…
I'm all for referring to people by their preferred pronouns, but complaining about "misgendering" a hypothetical person who exists only as the subject of a joke seems unnecessary. If the author of the joke decides to use male pronouns for his hypothetical person, then so be it. There's nothing to be gained by "correcting" that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm all for referring to people by their preferred pronouns, but complaining about "misgendering" a hypothetical person who exists only as the subject of a joke seems unnecessary. If the author of the joke decides to use male pronouns for his hypothetical person, then so be it. There's nothing to be gained by "correcting" that.
Theres plenty to be gained; it's about making it second nature in order to not make the same mistake with an actual, living, breathing human being.
Do you also complain about novelists misgendering their fictional characters?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There is no largest or smallest real number. The interesting number paradox applies to natural numbers, not real numbers. > Alternatively, being the smallest in the set of uninteresting numbers does not make a number interesting You are taking this too seriously. :-) Everyone would agree that "interesting" is subjective. This is supposed to be a humorous paradox, not a mathematical fact!
That was meant to be humorous, however dates are not natural numbers.
A set of dates obviously has an earliest date. The humour here is that an earliest date within the set of uninteresting dates is itself an interesting date by virtue of being the earliest such date in that set.
The nice thing about today's date, 2020-02-02, is that it is palindrome in three date formats: YYYYMMDD, DDMMYYYY, and MMDDYYYY. This should probably be called "Universal Palindrome Day" because it is a palindrome irrespective of the endianness (big, little, or middle) that is used in various countries. Here is the list of all such dates until the year 9999: 0101-10-10 1010-01-01 1111-11-11 2020-02-02 2121-12-12 3030…
Where is 2021-12-02 though? edit: NVM. Should read better.
The list in my comment contains only those dates that are palindromes in all of these three formats: yyyy-mm-dd, dd-mm-yyyy, and mm-dd-yyyy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Theres plenty to be gained; it's about making it second nature in order to not make the same mistake with an actual, living, breathing human being.
An actual, living, breathing human being is not invented by the author. Do you also complain about novelists misgendering their fictional characters?
An author inventing a character can create any character they want. But if you're going to make a remark about a hypothetical person who could exist, don't bound the gender. The two are completely incomparable.
We could keep going down this rabbit hole. Up to you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An actual, living, breathing human being is not invented by the author. Do you also complain about novelists misgendering their fictional characters?
That's a novel perversion of the assertion. An author inventing a character can create any character they want. But if you're going to make a remark about a hypothetical person who could exist, don't bound the gender. The two are completely incomparable. We could keep going down this rabbit hole. Up to you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I love the term "middle endianness" and how clearly it highlights how nuts the American date notation is. EDIT: fwiw, in my native language, most numbers from 100 and 1000 are pronounced middle endian, so I'm not complaining.
Little endian notation is somewhat mixed endian itself, because it contains 3 numbers, each number by itself is big endian, but the 3 numbers are arranged in little endian fashion amongst each other.