{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1fx98zxt3lzspjs5f4msr0fxysx5euucm29ghysryju7vpc9j0jzqtcl2d8","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1fx98zxt3lzspjs5f4msr0fxysx5euucm29ghysryju7vpc9j0jzqtcl2d8","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2014-04-05\n📝 Original message:On 4/5/14, Matt Whitlock \u003cbip at mattwhitlock.name\u003e wrote:\n\u003e On Saturday, 5 April 2014, at 12:21 pm, Jorge Timón wrote:\n\u003e\u003e I like both DD-MM-YYYY and YYYY-MM-DD. I just dislike MM-DD-YYYY and\n\u003e\u003e YYYY-DD-MM.\n\u003e\n\u003e Your preferences reflect a cultural bias. The only entirely numeric date\n\u003e format that is unambiguous across all cultures is YYYY-MM-DD. (No culture\n\u003e uses YYYY-DD-MM, or at least the ISO seems to think so.)\n\nProbably my acceptance of DD-MM-YYYY is caused by cultural bias.\nThe ISO YYYY-MM-DD seems what you normally do with indo-arabic\nnumerals: put the more weighted numbers on the left, so I guess it's\nthe most universal (in addition to being standard).\n\n-- \nJorge Timón\n\nhttp://freico.in/"}