January 13 1984 he switched to using Debian :)
Or unboxed his Dreamcast. :)
A disgruntled federal employee's 1980s desk calendar (2018)
61–70 of 85 posts
Re: A disgruntled federal employee's 1980s desk calendar (2018)
#62This is great, but this person is 4/10 on the disgruntled scale. A truly miserable government worker has a daily countdown to retirement. At extreme levels, down to the hour.
Rather a 0/10. He seems optimistic about Reagan, the US, Israel etc. Unless you count cheering your measly 5 day vacation as 'disgruntled' I would say he is not disgruntled at all. Rather a refreshing bit of hopefull and cares?
Maybe not optimistic about Reagan.
> On January 20, 1983 we read “THE HUMP: TWO YEARS OF REAGAN DONE AND TWO MORE TO YEARS GO.” He was of course to be disappointed in this, and Election Day 1984 is colored a somber black. In April 1986, however, the calendars begin a month-by-month countdown: “Thirty-four months of Reagan left!!!”
Re: A disgruntled federal employee's 1980s desk calendar (2018)
#63Software calendars are so poor compared to this. There’s no concept of importance, of impact, of life. Just times and titles, every one equivalent. Digital calendars have hardly evolved since the palm pilot.
Re: A disgruntled federal employee's 1980s desk calendar (2018)
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also: A man openly celebrating International Women's Day in 1981, while not impossible, is certainly unlikely. Similarly, "Nice Day With Liz" on a Sunday, seems like mentioning a platonic event. A man opening having female friends and meeting them 1-to-1 on a Sunday in 1981? Again, not impossible, but another point suggesting a female author.
Liz might be his SO?
I would wager that Liz is the female author's younger sister. In the calendar period, the author turns 32 and has an 8th wedding anniversary, meanwhile Liz graduates with a 4.0 GPA.
Second guess: Liz is female author's father's second wife. Ailing, but finishing college as an older student.
Absolutely nothing about the content, lettering, or drawing suggests a male author to me. FWIW!
Re: A disgruntled federal employee's 1980s desk calendar (2018)
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rather a 0/10. He seems optimistic about Reagan, the US, Israel etc. Unless you count cheering your measly 5 day vacation as 'disgruntled' I would say he is not disgruntled at all. Rather a refreshing bit of hopefull and cares?
Maybe not optimistic about Reagan. > On January 20, 1983 we read “THE HUMP: TWO YEARS OF REAGAN DONE AND TWO MORE TO YEARS GO.” He was of course to be disappointed in this, and Election Day 1984 is colored a somber black. In April 1986, however, the calendars begin a month-by-month countdown: “Thirty-four months of Reagan left!!!”
Ah, true. I only saw some neautral 'Reagan did X'. I didn't read all.
Re: A disgruntled federal employee's 1980s desk calendar (2018)
#66Re: A disgruntled federal employee's 1980s desk calendar (2018)
#67I'm curious about the two numbers recorded every second Saturday:
242/119, 246/85, 183/78, 187/84, 207/76, 115/197, 121/201, ...
Maybe it's obvious to Americans? Is it related to sports? I sure hope it's not their blood pressure!
Re: A disgruntled federal employee's 1980s desk calendar (2018)
#68"During the eighties, a nameless Cold Warrior grew frustrated in his job"
And now we know he got his period on the 15th, as well. Did the author not read each cell systematically?
Re: A disgruntled federal employee's 1980s desk calendar (2018)
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
You really think someone's gonna go back and do this for nine years of calendars? Look up something that happened every day to see if there's anything to make a doodle about? Imagine: It is 1981. You are working deep inside a bureaucracy. Social media does not exist, there is no equivalent to checking Hacker News for "a few minutes" and blowing an entire hour on it. Usenet barely exists - it was established last year…
You almost certainly didn't have a computer on your desk in 1981. The IBM PC was released in August.
You might well have had a terminal on your desk, because that had been an increasingly common thing for over a decade by 1981. But probably nothing fun on it in a government/military setting.