639
ISO 8601 ftw rule (gregtech.eu)
submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by lena@gregtech.eu to c/196

!iso8601@lemmy.sdf.org gang, rise up

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Kacarott@aussie.zone 1 points 1 week ago

Largest to smallest is also wrong. In 2025/01/28, the 28 is larger than the 01.

It should be "most significant" to "least significant"

[-] Umbrias@beehaw.org 1 points 1 week ago

largest to smallest is correct. 1 mile is larger than 20 meters. if i had specified numerical value or somesuch, maybe you'd be correct. though significance works as well.

[-] Kacarott@aussie.zone 1 points 1 week ago

Largest to smallest is at best ambiguous. It can refer to the size of the number itself, or the size of the unit.

There is a reason this exact concept in maths/computer science is known as the "significance" of the digit. Eg. The "least significant bit" in binary is the last one.

[-] Umbrias@beehaw.org 1 points 1 week ago

significance refers to a measurement certainty about a number itself, especially its precision! and is unrelated to the magnitude/scale. the number and dimension "2.5634 mm" has more significant digits than the number "5,000 mm", though the most significant digit is 2 and 5 respectively, and least significant 4 and 5 respectively. this is true if i rewrite it as 0.0025634 m and 5 m. it does work for doing what you say in this case because a date is equivalent to a single number, but is not correct in other situations. that's why i said it does work here.

largest to smallest increment is completely adequate, and describes the actual goal here well. most things are ambiguous if you try hard enough.

this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2025
639 points (100.0% liked)

196

16899 readers
1053 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS