IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 1 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Eh?
A generation is defined by the average female reproductive age, which was taken as 18 years.

Wikipedia:

1946 + 18 gives you 1964 for the end of the Baby Boomers.

You're welcome. ;-)

Cheers,
Scott.
New 1) Is it, really? 2) So when did the GIs start coming home? 3) IDGAF.
1) Look at the other "generations" in many (most) lists, and they seem to vary betweeen about fifteen and twenty years. Heck, just look at the very WP article you linked! They're all over the place:

* The Lost Generation: 1883-1900, 18 years.
* The Greatest Generation: 1901-1927, 27 years.
* The Silent Generation: 1928 - 1945, 18 years.
* Baby Boomers: 1946 - 1964, 19 years.
* Generation X: 1965 - 1980[1], 16 years.
* Millennials(or Gen Y): 1981 - 1996, 16 years.
* Generation Z: 1997 - 2013, 17 years.

Wow, the average female reproductive age sure seems to have swung pretty wildly in the 20th century...

2) I'm thinking the war in Europe was pretty much done towards the end of 1944, so that boom of new births may well actually have started in '45...? Hmm, maybe not, But anyway, from the related WP article Mid-20th century baby boom, check the chart US Birth Rates: That's freaking weird. If the "baby boom" (the red part of the line) ends at 21 births / 1000 ppl in 1964, why doesn't it start at 21 in 1941-42? (Because that would make it last 21-22 years...?) Or, since it starts at 24 b/Kp in 1946, then why doesn't it end at 24 in 1960? If "a boom" is defined as "at some very high value", you'd expect the cutoff for that value to be the same at the beginning as at the end of the boom.

3) a) When the expression "Generation X" was coined, by Douglas Coupland in his novel of the same name, all the buzz was about "people born in the 1960s", as opposed to their stodgy elders born in the '50s and earlier. I certainly know that I never for a second thought the "generation" he wrote about wasn't mine. (What did you think of it?)

b) Furthermore, I pretty strongly suspect that what Coupland was thinking of as he wrote it was his own generation. He was born in 1961.

c) In 2008 - 2009, the press was full of articles about "The first Generation-X President!", and I certainly can't remember any counter-articles claiming that "No, wait, he's a Baby Boomer!". Barack Obama was also born in 1961.

I've often defended Wikipedia, but in this case my entire point was that they're wrong on this. They're reporting the latest fashionable definitions as the once and forever truth, blithely disregarding that this is some modern redefined shit.

Just tell me honestly: When you saw those headlines about Obama, did you think "Naah, bullshit, he's a Boomer!"?

So, no: Thanks, but no thanks. I am not a "boomer".

___

[1]: Note the weasel-worded "The generation is generally defined as". By whom, and since when? (Fuck knows if they have any other source for most of the list than the linked WSJ style guide archived at Vol. 33, No. 1: Generations.)
--

   Christian R. Conrad
The Man Who Apparently Still Knows Fucking Everything


Mail: Same username as at the top left of this post, at iki.fi
New Heh... Look what I found.
From Generation X: Tales for an Accelerated Culture - Wikipedia, about his inspiration for the work:
Coupland felt that people his age were being misclassified as members of the Baby Boomer generation.
I just want to show society what people born after 1960 think about things... We're sick of stupid labels, we're sick of being marginalized in lousy jobs, and we're tired of hearing about ourselves from others

— Coupland, Boston Globe, 1991[6]

Later, Coupland described his novel as being about "the fringe of Generation Jones which became the mainstream of Generation X". Generation Jones is a term for tail-end Boomers, born between 1954 and 1964, who felt disconnected from the experiences of older Boomers such as the Vietnam War and the hippie subculture.[7]


So, yeah. The original definition of Generation X was from 1954.
--

   Christian R. Conrad
The Man Who Apparently Still Knows Fucking Everything


Mail: Same username as at the top left of this post, at iki.fi
New And that feels exactly right to me
Speaking as someone born in '63. The boomers didn't apply to me. I got to watch the hippies and essentially play at being a hippie but the hippies were over. I never got to be a hippie. It was time to grow up, get a job, raise a family, get a house, move on with your life.

This was the second half. The first half that came before me either tuned in and dropped out or were their antithesis and I got to see them in the workforce. Those guys sucked. So in the workforce I was always the minority from that attitude. At least with the people I interacted with. Those guys hated the hippies. Can't be a hippie around those guys.
New You have to be from the same generation as hippies to really hate hippies
Otherwise you're just old man screaming at clouds. When they're your college classmates, you can really work up a good head of steam about them.

Then of course there's the former hippies who are just quietly disappointed in their college friends who never grew up and started taking over the world.
--

Drew
New You need a certain attitude and FU money to talk back
Since they typically constrain the cash flow to the people who want to eat well need to modify their default behavior. They don't. And assholes who talk like them but don't control the cash flow yet don't need to constrain it.

Owners hire the people. Depending on how many levels you are between the owner and the underlings, you control the culture. Many people talk about workplace culture but very few people have directly implemented it.

My elder brother was in control of all decisions and cash flow. There could be between 3 and 20 simultaneous projects running under him with various people in control of a group of people and then that person would be in charge of the culture, as long as it implemented his culture.

He was a left wing, seriously, left wing, with a masters in human resources and counseling. Counseling. He was in charge of technical projects. It was very hard to get him to fire anyone no matter how incompetent. He was a visioneer of impossible projects that got done.

And I rode with him 2 hours in the car everyday when we commuted and reviewed every project and discussed the technical aspects as well as the human resources and cash flow aspects. And we built a division, a separate department within a large company with its own p&l responsibility, over 10 years. And he rarely ever talked to any of the individual employees for more than 3 minutes a week.

It was my job to go out to lunch with everybody at least three times a week. I was one-on-one with new hires for at least a week. In the later days I worked from home and it didn't matter. But in the first 7 years of buildup I went to work.

I made the hiring decisions. I was the gatekeeper. I was the recruiter. And I was the person who guided them through the various steps of the HR gauntlet. Once they were hired, I trained them in the specifics of large-scale data processing, which meant I had to untrain anything they ever learned before. Even though most of them were experts to start off with. I was their best friend and their worst enemy. I was the guy they came to with both technical and personnel problems.

Everyone knew I commuted with the guy in charge, he was my elder brother and he always said yes to the last person he ever spoke to (or gave you a good brainwashing so you walked out of the office being told no without even realizing it) and the last person he spoke to was always me. I made the decisions.

I was the culture.

I managed to weasel around other people's cultures. Occasionally I had to interact with the owners. The primary 51% owner hated me, my background, my culture, my religion, my technical choices, and the reason I was hired for the job. He specifically did not want me to accomplish my job. Occasionally I was really stupid and said what I really thought. Occasionally I had to go to battle. Occasionally. I know when I'm doing it.

A thought on political attitudes of programmers of varying levels. We all know we have the top accomplishers in the top 10%. Obviously I made up that 10%, but you know there's a dramatic cut off between a certain level of programmer's ability and the next level.

The best programmers will get the programs and computers to get to do the work for them eventually. They will program themselves out of a job. And they will do it in such an imaginative way that they think is stupid and obvious. But the next level down say that's incredibly brilliant.

I'm not in that level. I'm in the pretend level. The best 1% are light years beyond me. That's bTilly. That's admin but he probably won't admit it. I'll still automate everything out of existence, but I'll do it a bit kludgier. I'm at the level that I want elegance, I know one line of code is better than 50 but sometimes I just can't pull it off, and that means the people behind me won't understand it, so I'll throw in what I consider a compromise.

But I am in the next level down. I'm still 10 times better than the next down level. My productivity is amazing compared to what the typical default programmer is. The vast majority of programmers who have jobs.

The next next level down gets stuff done but they need to be watched. They need to be able to take that old drudge code and then make modifications and make sure they didn't screw anything up worse than it already was. Most of the time they get right, sometimes they don't, sometimes all breaks loose but they really don't care. It's just a job to them.

I love to code. That's a generic term. I love to create systems and implement stuff and I even love to talk to customers and really figure out what to do to get things done. I love to get down into the nitty-gritty with the hardware and the software and I love to actually then code.

The next level down couldn't imagine playing at my level and the next level above couldn't imagine wasting the time with it.

My level and above are typically left-wing. The next level down are typically right-wing. They don't want anything to change. They're scared of change. My level and above always experience change and the change has almost always been for the better.
New Until ...
My level and above always experience change and the change has almost always been for the better.

Until the building blocks of the systems they build are business units.

When you're writing the code, it will do whatever you can imagine.

When you're creating the culture, the people will do whatever you can convince them is in their interest.

When you're building a company, every other company is actively working against you. It's not about being "right" or having a "better" solution. It's about winning a non-linear rigged game. Partners are just competitors with a common interest, or potential mergers where the C suite hasn't worked out yet who stays and who goes.

When you're at the level where you need to lobby in DC, because the law is what you're fighting, you're going to look like every other oligarch or robber baron.
--

Drew
New No argument there
The second you are at the level of p&l, profit and loss, those imaginary building blocks are very real.

When I design systems that include people's jobs. How many people will be required to run the system for the next 3 years during the contract? Okay. Let's go find them, hire them, train them and make sure they get along with everybody else. Sometimes they didn't and had to be removed.

How much profit are we making during this contract and did it actually cover those people's jobs 2 years in? No? Can we use them in another department? No? Can we find a job for them anywhere else? Almost always. Hey, so and so, you're having difficulty here, and I hear this guy over there would really like to hire you. Wouldn't you like that job? No? We are having financial difficulties here and your job is in danger, wouldn't you really like that job?

Yes!

Sometimes that didn't always work out. But we tried. Sometimes. There is absolutely no other job to give them. They weren't working out for real reasons. Then it was my job to get rid of them.

Sometimes the entire division was in jeopardy based on a political, not technical decision. It was still my job to deal with it.

So yes, that moment of crossing from the arbitrary building blocks of a technical system that is self-contained except for data and electricity is vastly different from where I played.

And yes, our lawyers told me that I needed to print out all my code so we can copyright it all and then patent it and then go attack our competitors. I slow walked that one. Oops, it never got done.
New I think the point was, we aren't, we're from the next one. Hippies were our uncles.
New Hippies
I was never a Hippie, but I associated closely with them.
New But it's not the definition *now*, so you're going to have to accept your label, boomer.
New Oh shadappayouface, you little emo goth millennial zoomer.
See, I can redefine you millennials into gen-Z too.

Some things are just wrong, and they don't become right just because a lot of idiots believe them.
--

   Christian R. Conrad
The Man Who Apparently Still Knows Fucking Everything


Mail: Same username as at the top left of this post, at iki.fi
New Meh.
Generation Jones is a term for tail-end Boomers, born between 1954 and 1964, who felt disconnected from the experiences of older Boomers such as the Vietnam War and the hippie subculture.


Maybe because, er, the older Boomers were, I dunno, older?

I don't see the profundity of this arguing about "younger Boomers are not really Boomers" stuff.

A generation is a convenient grouping. Boomers was a grouping that made sense because it was larger than what came before. It doesn't mean that everyone was the same, or that people born in 1946 were the same as people born in 1960.

Everyone in the "Greatest Generation" wasn't a hero. Lots of the crap dumped on the Boomers should rightfully be dumped on them (Reagan, George Wallace, Barry Goldwater, etc.) instead, if we're going to dump on generations.

Everyone who shops at Target isn't the same.

Everyone who roots for Arsenal isn't the same.

Everyone who thinks that cilantro tastes like soap isn't the same.

Boomers is a convenient grouping in a particular context. That's it. That's all.


[/rant]

;-)

Cheers,
Scott.
New But what about...
... Boomers who root for Arsenal, shop at Target, and think that cilantro tastes like soap?
Regards,
-scott
Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
New Cilantro tasting like soap is fixable.
Even some who claim to have the genetic defect that causes Cilantro to taste like soap say the fix works.

The fix is exposure (same as with chilis).

I have a copy of the first Thai cookbook written in English. The author was an exchange student in Thailand. She couldn't stand Cilantro, and asked for the food served to her to be 'No Cilantro!'. This horrified her native associates - but this was Thailand, they either didn't understand or refused go comply, so she got plenty of Cilantro. She testifies that a few months later she was ordering "With extra Cilantro".

There was another lady who ran a group Web site called "I Hate Cilantro!". Of course, for her diatribes she had to do a lot of research. Some time later she submitted her resignation to the group, explaining that, due to exposure, she had come to quite like Cilantro.

Cilantro was the most popular herb across Europe, but for some reason it was inexplicably supplanted by Parsley. By that time, European merchants had introduce Cilantro worldwide. It is still used in the Canary Islands (Spain) and somewhat in Italy.

In my early cooking days I was mystified by recipes calling for "Italian Parsley" and "Chinese Parsley", until I finally found out it was Cilantro. Today, those terms are no longer used.

Of course, due to our ever more mixed demographics here in the US, Cilantro is everywhere. The markets I shop at have big bins of it, which are renewed every few hours. England probably also has plenty due to Indian influence.
Expand Edited by Andrew Grygus Aug. 28, 2024, 07:07:29 PM EDT
New I did not know that. [/Carson] Thanks.
New Well, cilantro is in some Mexican food items.
Chipotle restaurants serve cilantro in salad parts.

My wife and I enjoy it! :)
Alex

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."

-- Isaac Asimov
New Well, yes . . .
. . the Spanish took Cilantro to the Canary Islands, Mexico, Central and South America, and the Philippines - before converting to Parsley. Cilantro is still the number one herb in those countries.

So, to fake "authenticity", you have to include Cilantro.

Many years ago my mother was amazed to see Indian people at Sunland Produce stuffing a couple of bags with Cilantro (which she didn't use as far as I know). Of course, for many uses you need quite a bundle of Cilantro, because it's thin and chops down to rather little.

Fortunately, except for some appearance critical uses, you can use a lot of the stems, which actually improves the overall taste. This was just recently "discovered" by "America's Test Kitchen". Of course, they have "discovered" other things I have been using for decades.

For Thai sauces and such, we can't get Cilantro Roots here, so we have to use the thicker stems as a "not quite right" substitute.
New Yes, the red in that chart should clearly start a year sooner
--

Drew
     I just realized Tim Walz is younger than me - (crazy) - (41)
         old and weird with a really weird running mate -NT - (boxley)
         Not X - (drook) - (30)
             Correct - (pwhysall) - (29)
                 Yeah I got the gen wrong - (crazy)
                 That re-definition pisses me off to no end. - (CRConrad) - (27)
                     ok boomer -NT - (pwhysall) - (4)
                         Ehh, don't harsh it - (crazy) - (2)
                             Generation Jones - (malraux) - (1)
                                 Interesting - (crazy)
                         You X-- eh, we! We, of course! -- We X-ers are soo predictable. -NT - (CRConrad)
                     Of course, I've got you all beat . . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (2)
                         Yeah Dad, we knew that. - (CRConrad) - (1)
                             Re: Ashton - (malraux)
                     Eh? - (Another Scott) - (18)
                         1) Is it, really? 2) So when did the GIs start coming home? 3) IDGAF. - (CRConrad) - (17)
                             Heh... Look what I found. - (CRConrad) - (15)
                                 And that feels exactly right to me - (crazy) - (6)
                                     You have to be from the same generation as hippies to really hate hippies - (drook) - (5)
                                         You need a certain attitude and FU money to talk back - (crazy) - (2)
                                             Until ... - (drook) - (1)
                                                 No argument there - (crazy)
                                         I think the point was, we aren't, we're from the next one. Hippies were our uncles. -NT - (CRConrad) - (1)
                                             Hippies - (Andrew Grygus)
                                 But it's not the definition *now*, so you're going to have to accept your label, boomer. -NT - (pwhysall) - (1)
                                     Oh shadappayouface, you little emo goth millennial zoomer. - (CRConrad)
                                 Meh. - (Another Scott) - (5)
                                     But what about... - (malraux) - (4)
                                         Cilantro tasting like soap is fixable. - (Andrew Grygus) - (1)
                                             I did not know that. [/Carson] Thanks. -NT - (Another Scott)
                                         Well, cilantro is in some Mexican food items. - (a6l6e6x) - (1)
                                             Well, yes . . . - (Andrew Grygus)
                             Yes, the red in that chart should clearly start a year sooner -NT - (drook)
         You and Peter Zeihan. - (CRConrad)
         Joe Biden is younger than me! :) -NT - (a6l6e6x)
         30M - (malraux) - (4)
             til - (drook) - (2)
                 Oh yeah, you're doomed - (crazy) - (1)
                     Boomer smugness - (rcareaga)
             Re: 30M - (rcareaga)
         Just looked him up -- less than three weeks younger than I. - (CRConrad) - (1)
             Some guys have looked like they were 50 from the time they were 20 -NT - (drook)

Slices, dices, chops...
161 ms