Unpopular Opinions

[Discrim]

On 10/9/2023 at 11:46 PM, ruttep said:

Not even your most unpopular opinion this week lmao.

 

In all seriousness, these were mid. Don't really understand what they were going for with those shoulder gradients.

Snakeskin, basically.  Sure, it bombed, but snakeskin.

[Cujo]

7 hours ago, CaliforniaGlowin said:

I like the darker gray, I wish it was turquoise instead of red.

 

They kinda did.

 

[Ark]

53 minutes ago, Cujo said:

 

They kinda did.

 

 

These are definitely an improvement.

 

They had it right 20 years ago though

[CaliforniaGlowin]

1 hour ago, Cujo said:

 

They kinda did.

 

That's awesome. I don't like the red though.

[The_Admiral]

On 10/10/2023 at 8:09 AM, Sec19Row53 said:

The intersection of those two sets of fans is likely tiny. Sort of the Venn diagram of Hall of Fame guitarists and renowned astrophysicists.

Ah, yes, the Skunk Baxter set.

[SFGiants58]

32 minutes ago, the admiral said:

Ah, yes, the Skunk Baxter set.

 

Skunk Baxter would never authorize a movie as disrespectful as Bohemian Rhapsody.

 

I love that it's ok to dunk on that movie now, because it deserves it so much.

[Red Comet]

 

Yeah, the sleeveless look is terrible, but I liked the modernization of the font during the mid-2000s Royals era. I could've done without the heinous baseball being played then but that's another story entirely. 

[JerseyJimmy]

On 8/31/2023 at 11:39 AM, DCarp1231 said:

I don’t mind shoulder wordmarks

 

nah, man, shoulder logos are where it's at

 

  

[DCarp1231]

33 minutes ago, JerseyJimmy said:

 

nah, man, shoulder logos are where it's at

 

  

Now see, I like it somewhat on the Steelers considering it kinda makes up for the lack of logo on that side of the helmet.

 

However, the pre 2019 Jets, the 2013-present Jaguars, and Chiefs (yes I know it’s a AFL logo because Lamar Hunt blah blah blah) can kick rocks. 

[BBTV]

On 10/8/2023 at 11:06 PM, Sec19Row53 said:

It was 2006, so those zeroes ar necessary.

 

I'd call leading zeroes those that are added where they aren't needed.

 

I'm a little torn on this.

 

First - I hate when people say "oh" instead of "zero", especially when doing technical work since there's a very significant difference, even if I know what they mean.  I also hate it when giving phone numbers, since it's literally a zero and not an O.  I'm not going to lead the fight to change the "6-1-oh" area code to "6-1-zero", but I'll enlist in the army if someone else does.

 

So let's carry that over to years, where it also should be "zero" and not "oh".  If we were being formal (which nobody actually does), 1902 is "one thousand nine hundred two".  But of course nobody is going to say that, so it's nineteen oh two, which is wrong, but I guess rolls off the tongue better than nineteen zero two, which is also wrong, because if we're breaking it into blocks (I'm tempted to say bytes, but that doesn't make sense here), nineteen is fine, but the zero is unnecessary and would only need to be there if literally writing 1902, since we use base 10 math. 

 

If 19 and 02 are in separate blocks, I think you could get away with nineteen two and it's just as valid as any other way of saying it.

 

Therefore, I do  think the "02" contains a leading zero, since if we're only referring to the right side of the two blocks of "19" and "02", there's no need for the 0, as only the 2*10^0 part is necessary, and the "zero" or "oh" is superfluous.  On top of that, people say "oh two", which is objectively wrong, so just get rid of the "oh" part.

 

I'm hereby advocating that if not including the century, we just say the number, so it'd just be '2 for 1902 or 2002, '9 for 1909 or 2009, etc.

 

Come at me.

 

 

[DTConcepts]

5 minutes ago, BBTV said:

If 19 and 02 are in separate blocks, I think you could get away with nineteen two and it's just as valid as any other way of saying it.

 

if you said this in regular conversation i would have to ask you to clarify what you meant

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

2 hours ago, BBTV said:

I think you could get away with nineteen two

That was indeed the convention in the spoken language at the time. If you had asked someone in 1902 what year it was, that person would have responded with "nineteen two". This style can be heard in interviews with old-time ballplayers.

 

Of course, this style could not have been used a century later; the year 2002 could not be said as "twenty two". If someone wanted to start the name of the year with "twenty", then the only option after that  is "oh 2". 

 

(In practice, everyone said "two thousand two"; the convention of starting the name of the name of the year with "twenty" didn't really take hold until 2010.)

[Sec19Row53]

2 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

That was indeed the convention in the spoken language at the time. If you had asked someone in 1902 what year it was, that person would have responded with "nineteen two". This style can be heard in interviews with old-time ballplayers.

 

Of course, this style could not have been used a century later; the year 2002 could not be said as "twenty two". If someone wanted to start the name of the year with "twenty", then the only option after that  is "oh 2". 

 

(In practice, everyone said "two thousand two"; the convention of starting the name of the name of the year with "twenty" didn't really take hold until 2010.)

A - How do you know this?

B - No.

[BBTV]

The two thousand eight Phillies were the World Series Champions, not the two thousand and eight Phillies.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

On 10/14/2023 at 8:39 PM, Sec19Row53 said:

A - How do you know this?

B - No.

 

A - From hearing interviews with people saying it like that.

 

B - I trust that you are not picking on the slight hyperbole in the use of "everyone" to mean "just about everyone".  The important point is that the vast majority said "two thousand two" and a few goofballs said "twenty oh two", but absolutely no one said "twenty two" (analogous to "nineteen two").

[AnPheitseog]

I still think people going 20-23 sound weird. It's Two thousand twenty three, thank you very much.

 

(or, how i actually prefer it, deux milles vignt-trois)

[DCarp1231]

2 minutes ago, AnPheitseog said:

I still think people going 20-23 sound weird. It's Two thousand twenty three, thank you very much.

 

(or, how i actually prefer it, deux milles vignt-trois)

Yeah no.

 

I highly doubt there is or were people out there saying things like “I was born in one thousand nine hundred and seventy six.”

 

Theres nothing wrong with saying “twenty twenty three” and the common vernacular of calendar years shouldn’t be changed now.

[AnPheitseog]

1 minute ago, DCarp1231 said:

Yeah no.

 

I highly doubt there is or were people out there saying things like “I was born in one thousand nine hundred and seventy six.”

 

Theres nothing wrong with saying “twenty twenty three” and the common vernacular of calendar years shouldn’t be changed now.

There's a huge difference between the 1900s and 2000s in terms of ease.

 

If i'm luck enough to live into the 2100s then it'll revert. not until then.

[DCarp1231]

Just now, AnPheitseog said:

There's a huge difference between the 1900s and 2000s in terms of ease.

 

If i'm luck enough to live into the 2100s then it'll revert. not until then.

19-76

 

20-23

 

It’s not difficult to continue saying it the same way.
 

Obviously there’s nothing wrong with saying “two thousand twenty three” but it’s a relative mouthful compared to the other annunciation. Why get bent out of shape over how people want to say it?

 

Toe-may-toe / Toe-mah-toe

[Sec19Row53]

3 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

A - From hearing interviews with people saying it like that.

 

B - I trust that you are not picking on the slight hyperbole in the use of "everyone" to mean "just about everyone".  The important point is that the vast majority said "two thousand two" and a few goofballs said "twenty oh two", but absolutely said "twenty two" (analogous to "nineteen two").

Interviews from the 19 aughts? Do tell.