for storing/filing I agree but for normal use d-m-y makes more sense to me. it frontloads the most relevant information and you can cut it at either break and it could still be helpful, since one's likely to remember the month they're in and even more likely to remember the year. more significant is less relevant.

h:m:a makes more sense for the opposite reason. less significant units of time become less relevant at that scale.

in any case, ascending or descending is demonstrably better than whatever the fuck m-d-y is.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Theoretically, sure, but in reading and speech it doesn't really matter if you're comfortable with the format. If someone is going to say or write the full date you're not going to interrupt them after they say the day or reflexively stop reading after two numbers. If they just want to say the day, that's all they'll say.

[+] [email protected] -7 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

M-d-y is whats sounds the most natural when spoken in a casual setting. I feel like thats the only reason it got carried over to text. I definitely use m-d-y when talking, and as an american I also use it out of habit when writing, but I will agree that y-m-d is definitely best for text.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 weeks ago

but the spoken is based on the written format. you say January 2nd because that's how you write it. if you wrote it the other way you'd say 2nd of January. you already use this sometimes, which I only assume as a remnant from a time your calendar wasn't standardized as m-d-y yet, in "4th of July" for example.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 weeks ago

M-d-y is whats sounds the most natural when spoken in a casual setting.

That's just habit. In my country we both write and pronounce dates as d-m-y and it's just as natural for us as m-d-y is for you

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

That's very language dependant. I'm basque and we say things naturally. We do skip the year if it's not relevant, but when we do say it, it comes first always.

Urtarrilak 2.
2025eko urtarrilak 2.

In Spanish however it's dd-mm-yyyy and sounds perfectly natural.

2 de Enero.
2 de enero de 2025

You saying that your way sounds most natural when spoken is very pretentious because you assume that whats familiar to you is what's most natural overall, but that's just a generalisation of your own customs.

[–] expr 2 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

It's not pretentious if someone doesn't know better.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago

I'm sure it wasn't the intention, but it did come acoss that way

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 weeks ago

Assuming there's no better way is plenty preferentious to me, we ought to be more humble than that.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

If you read the digits in reverse it matches ISO 8601.

And yes I know it's a joke (:

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

ISO 8601 is the only right way. Easy to read and write and trivially sortable.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago

Great for dating files, too. We have an otherwise exceptionally inefficient routing chain at work, but we're required to start each file with the date it was created (e.g. 20250101 Johnson Commendation) and it works beautifully for finding files and knowing how long they've sat in someone's "bucket" even though a hard copy is being delivered office-to-office (but final memo needs to be signed digitally). sigh

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

The format of the date is somewhere around #9000 on my list of shit to worry about in real life.

Edit: I'm dealing with conflicting date time formats in SQL databases and this is now issue #8000 in my life