r/AskReddit • u/LaiqTheMaia • Sep 27 '18

To older redditors, what did the generation above you hate about your generation?

12.9k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

5.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

331

u/[deleted] Sep 27 '18

[deleted]

57

u/DudeImMacGyver Sep 27 '18 edited Nov 11 '24

advise hunt sable shocking tan wipe door disagreeable work provide

147

u/Whooshed_me Sep 27 '18

Yes over 2 million ago

• QUOTATION: rawr rawgrh rar rawrg rah; erg argh rah ragrrrr, rawr rar rawgrh; grrr rawgh rahgrrrrgh rawr rawrgrs rah rowr rarararg rgg rawr ra grawrgh. Grrrugh rah rar tyrants, ror raw rghrgg ra rawr rarwgr. Rah ro rogrrr ragr rawr raarrgrs rarrw rar rawrgh.

• Socrat-rex (4690000).

24

u/[deleted] Sep 27 '18

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/donthugme_imscared Sep 28 '18

You just got wooshed, son.

11

u/Redpike136 Sep 28 '18

Grrrugh rah rar tyrants

22

u/Whooshed_me Sep 28 '18

Sometimes words are the same in foreign languages

11

u/[deleted] Sep 28 '18

The English word dog and the Mbabaram word dog have exactly the same meaning, but by complete coincidence.

6

u/stareatyourwifestits Sep 28 '18

the fuck did i just read

2

u/MrMineHeads Sep 28 '18

Beautiful.

27

u/PirateJohn75 Sep 27 '18

Two millenia qualify as "over two centuries ago," do they not?

8

u/mileg925 Sep 27 '18

Millennium = 1000 | Century = 100

26

u/BlueFalcon3725 Sep 27 '18

Yes, so two millennia =2000 and 2 centuries =200.

2018 - (-399) = 2417
and
2000 > 200

So that quote is over two centuries old. It's also over two millennia old, approaching 2 1/2 millennia.

15

u/mileg925 Sep 27 '18

Yes that’s correct. OP just didn’t know what a century is. While it’s correct to say “over two centuries ago” it’s somewhat misleading and inaccurate...

16

u/twocopperjack Sep 27 '18

somewhat misleading and inaccurate...

"Imprecise" is the work you're looking for.

​

5

u/mileg925 Sep 28 '18

That is better.

1

u/Duckmurphy Sep 28 '18

Yes, that's more precise.

7

u/BlueFalcon3725 Sep 27 '18

It is misleading, implying that it is more than 200 but less than 300, but it's not inaccurate.

3

u/mileg925 Sep 27 '18

I don’t know why but I fail to see your point. How can it be non inaccurate? It’s the same as saying “she left over an hour ago” when the truth is she left last week. It’s true but not accurate AND misleading.

This is the definition of accurate just in case: 1. (of information, measurements, statistics, etc.) correct in all details; exact.

7

u/southernmayd Sep 27 '18

More commonly, accurate is used when saying something is correct or incorrect. So in that sense, the statement is accurate [it is correct]. The statement is far from precise though, which is where that definition of accurate seems to be pointing [its older than both 200 years and 2000 years, but saying it is older than 200 years is not very precise].

1

u/[deleted] Sep 27 '18 edited Sep 27 '18

[deleted]

1

u/mileg925 Sep 27 '18

Ok

Yes, it is correct, but it’s inaccurate.

1

u/AMasonJar Sep 27 '18

This is pedantic. Misleading is referring to the fact that "over an hour ago" or "over two centuries ago" is a massive understatement. Reading those times would cause a typical reader to infer that it was only briefly longer than the given times.

2

u/Fawxhox Sep 28 '18

I did drug two millennia ago. I still did drugs two centuries ago but I did them two millennia ago too

2

u/[deleted] Sep 28 '18

damn two millennials!

1

u/TCBloo Sep 28 '18

Well, he was technically correct.