Talk:3089: Modern

Hate to be that guy, but wow, it’s 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)

I guess the phone companies got it right with the 3G, 4G, 5G naming. Barmar (talk) 20:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Except for that 10G glitch. And Dilbert predicted people copyrighting "8G" years before that. 104.23.172.75 20:34, 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)