Difference between revisions of "Talk:3089: Modern"
(Recency Bias and Nomenclature) |
|||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
:The US Military has a similar problem: naming a system "Next-Gen [X]" but then the "Next Gen" item eventually becomes the current generation, and is eventually moving towards being obsolete and you need a successor (next-next gen?).[[Special:Contributions/172.69.6.111|172.69.6.111]] 20:05, 14 May 2025 (UTC) | :The US Military has a similar problem: naming a system "Next-Gen [X]" but then the "Next Gen" item eventually becomes the current generation, and is eventually moving towards being obsolete and you need a successor (next-next gen?).[[Special:Contributions/172.69.6.111|172.69.6.111]] 20:05, 14 May 2025 (UTC) | ||
::I guess the phone companies got it right with the 3G, 4G, 5G naming. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 20:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC) | ::I guess the phone companies got it right with the 3G, 4G, 5G naming. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 20:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Wasn't there an earlier strip describing a similar problem on Wikipedia edits, maybe tied to the {{w|recency bias}}? There's the idea that every more recent slice needs a new, relevant name. It also seems to work going backwards, where humanity's genus, tribe, subfamily, and family are "homo", "hominini", "homininae", and "hominidae" respectively. We seem to crave a name for every arbitrary slice that is relevant for a particular researcher. And now I'm thinking of Futurama's "New New York". I'm surprised there's not already a New New York somewhere. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.233.117|162.158.233.117]] 20:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 20:31, 14 May 2025
Hate to be that guy, but wow, itโs empty Broseph (talk) 19:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
This strip reminded me of the comments in 3063. Historians / historiographers typically define (early) "modernity" to begin around 1500. early modernity 172.71.182.126 19:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
A similar problem exists, where a recent version of the Bible is known as the New Revised Standard Version. It will be a bit awkward when it is not new, revised, or standard. BobcatInABox (talk) 19:38, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
- The US Military has a similar problem: naming a system "Next-Gen [X]" but then the "Next Gen" item eventually becomes the current generation, and is eventually moving towards being obsolete and you need a successor (next-next gen?).172.69.6.111 20:05, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Wasn't there an earlier strip describing a similar problem on Wikipedia edits, maybe tied to the recency bias? There's the idea that every more recent slice needs a new, relevant name. It also seems to work going backwards, where humanity's genus, tribe, subfamily, and family are "homo", "hominini", "homininae", and "hominidae" respectively. We seem to crave a name for every arbitrary slice that is relevant for a particular researcher. And now I'm thinking of Futurama's "New New York". I'm surprised there's not already a New New York somewhere. 162.158.233.117 20:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
