It’s a palindromic date day. How absurd.

Today is 21.02.2012 – for those of us who use format.  And of course you can see that the numbers read the same forward as backwards. Ignoring the separators that is.  Many date writers argue that this form of writing the date is logical, but then will tell you this at 11:10 in the morning, without seeing the absurdity of of using an ascending time format for the date, and a descending time format (hh:mm) for the time. (Don’t get me started on those who like to write days in semi-random order like mm.dd.yy).

It is time to sort this mess out.  From tomorrow onwards (hey – I’ve got to enjoy the palindromic date today) I will write my dates in the logical format to match the logical hh:mm format I use for times. I’d like you to join me and see if we can save the world.

So tomorrow will be 2012.02.22 and at 21.02 seconds after two minutes past ten tomorrow night, the time will be a palindromic 2012.02.22 22:02:21.02.

About RedNectar Chris Welsh

Professional IT Instructor. All things TCP/IP, Cisco or Data Centre
This entry was posted in opinion. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to It’s a palindromic date day. How absurd.

  1. Pingback: Time for better International Awareness from companies providing International Service | RedNectar's Blog

  2. TechieXXX says:

    Let’s not overwhelm human intelligence and start with shoe sizes 😉

    p.s. sure a universal usb to cell phone plug would be nice too…..

    p.s. 2 I’m glad I’m not the only one who gets worked up over these illogical…choices we’ve made over the centuries and are unable or as in most case unwilling to resolve.

    p.s. 3 can live with yyyy-mm-dd or dd-mm-yyyy but mm-dd-yyyy is just silly.

  3. Sima Parama says:

    I have been using yyyy-mm-dd for decades now despite the flow of the mass river of unquestioning acceptance around me. Furthermore, I think that it’s absurd to have the centuries-old decimal (base10) system for our mathematics and yet not in our measuring system (again the mass river of unquestioning acceptance of the illogical, captain). Try dividing 1 ft. 5 in. into 7 equal parts and find it on your ruler. Now try dividing 17cm into 7 equal parts and find that on your ruler – you can do that in your head and it’s faster, easier. Our carpenters would have a much easier time, as would cooks, merchants and others. Why don’t we use cubits, rods and furlongs for our speed limits?
    (I seem to have digressed a tad, eh?)

  4. deadohiosky says:

    I get what your saying, but mm.dd.yyyy is logical because everyone knows the year already. We don’t always immediately know the day/month/hour. So we are presented with the important information first.

    • rednectar says:

      I’m not sure you do get what I’m saying – I’m advocating that we all use a consistent and logical time format for all time units, whether ascending or descending. Ordering items in order of “importance” is illogical because “importance” can change over time (I bet you remember the YEAR World War II ended, but not the month and the day) and for different events it may be the year, the day or the hour that is important. You may well believe that months are more important than days are more important than years are more important than hours are more important than minutes are more important than seconds – but that doesn’t make it logical.

      So I see there are really only two logical choices:

      a) year-month-day-hour-minute-second
      b) second-minute-hour-day-month-year

      Option a) is in widespread use throughout Asia, and the “hour-minute-second” is pretty universal, although a lot of people try and complicate it by appending an “am” or “pm”, and the mm.dd part is common in North America. On the other hand option b) is pretty much unheard of, so I’m urging all logical thinkers to use the option a) logic.

      On reflection, my suggested format is yyyy-mm-dd hh:mm:ss (even though I used a format above – I now realise the “.” character could be confused with a decimal point)
      The yyyy/mm/dd and formats are reasonable alternatives, as would be a two digit year, but I don’t like using “/” simply because I can’t use it in a file name!

      And BTW – what I’m suggesting is nothing new – it’s already agreed to in ISO 8601

  5. rm says:

    mmm no.
    I will stick with..

Comments are closed.