Darting dogs

[wheelswings]

Here’s a question for you dog authorities out there (RCannon?). What is the appropriate response when an unleashed dog races into the street, ignores the commands of its owners, and chases after me on my bike? It happened again today, as it has several times over the years. I know almost nothing about dogs, so normally I just pedal super-fast and hope the dog will get tired before the next big intersection.

Is there a preferable way to react? Go fast? Stop? Give the dog a command of some sort? I don’t know if a dog would listen to a command from someone who’s not its caretaker.

I grew up with guinea pigs, a rescued rabbit, two Madagascar hissing roaches (a gift from a science teacher), chickens in the attic, an abandoned turtle, and a rescued skunk, among others. But I’m afraid dogs are beyond my expertise…

Topic

[cyclingfool]

@ShawnoftheDread 103838 wrote:

But I’d you go by the 24-hour clock, you don’t write your dates that way.

Not necessarily. Phone, computer, and wristwatch times all set to 24-hour clock for me, and I write my dates the ‘murican way.

If I’m not mistaken, the same is true for US military and aviation.

[americancyclo]

I got bit by my kid the other day. Of course she was off leash so maybe I deserved it

[Orestes Munn]

Military does dates year/month/day on documents, but does day/month/year in less formal places. Never month/day/year.

[cyclingfool]

@Orestes Munn 103846 wrote:

Military does dates year/month/day.

I stand corrected, and as a freak user of the 24 hour clock.

[PotomacCyclist]

I was thinking more of the civilian international usage, but I guess they follow the day/month/year format too. Actually, I was only thinking of the hours format, so this was a hybrid format. As long as no air traffic controllers were relying on the post, I think it was OK.

[PotomacCyclist]

Actually, the National Weather Service uses the month/day/year, plus 24-hr time format. Or maybe a hybrid of their own. Some of their timestamps have the hours/minutes and time zone, followed by month (two digits)/day/year. Other timestamps have the standard American format: month/day, 12-hr clock.

http://www.weather.gov/

http://alerts.weather.gov/cap/dc.php?x=1

http://alerts.weather.gov/cap/va.php?x=1

[mstone]

all timestamps should be based on ISO 8601 notation: YYYY-MM-DD[T]hh:mm[:ss][.ssssss][+-offset]

because it actually makes sense

[cyclingfool]

@mstone 103875 wrote:

all timestamps should be based on ISO 8601 notation: YYYY-MM-DD[T]hh:mm[:ss][.ssssss][+-offset]

because it actually makes sense

So does the metric system. That doesn’t seem to have derailed us from archaic measurements yet.

[PotomacCyclist]

@mstone 103875 wrote:

all timestamps should be based on ISO 8601 notation: YYYY-MM-DD[T]hh:mm[:ss][.ssssss][+-offset]

because it actually makes sense

If it’s not commonly used, why does it make more sense than a commonly used format? Maybe that format is used in some settings, but that’s not a format that I see often in news articles, calendars, weather reports, etc. If someone isn’t familiar with ISO 8601 (which I suspect is the case for most people), they may not know whether the month or the date comes first. The unusual format may lead them to question, rightly, whether this timestamp is following the civilian U.S. standard, military standard, international civilian standard, aviation, weather or other standards.

With all the confusion out there, I wouldn’t say that a particular format makes any more sense than another. Only if there is a standardized format within an industry or setting, and only when the vast majority of readers know which standard is always used, can there be a format that truly makes more sense than any others.

[Orestes Munn]

@cyclingfool 103878 wrote:

So does the metric system. That doesn’t seem to have derailed us from archaic measurements yet.

Knowing what little I do about human behavior, I don’t think rational systems lend themselves to human adoption any better, ipso facto, than seemingly arbitrary ones, even though they may be easier to understand or notate. After all, our brains and bodies were not developed prospectively according to a sensible, data-driven, plan, but, rather, shaped by arbitrary circumstances and random events.

[mstone]

@PotomacCyclist 103884 wrote:

If it’s not commonly used, why does it make more sense than a commonly used format? Maybe that format is used in some settings, but that’s not a format that I see often in news articles, calendars, weather reports, etc. If someone isn’t familiar with ISO 8601 (which I suspect is the case for most people), they may not know whether the month or the date comes first. The unusual format may lead them to question, rightly, whether this timestamp is following the civilian U.S. standard, military standard, international civilian standard, aviation, weather or other standards.[/quote]

It’s quite commonly used, except in the US (as pointed out above, we have trouble with things that make sense). The one thing it isn’t is ambiguous–there isn’t another system which uses YYYY-DD-MM, and two digit years are expressly prohibited in order to avoid ambiguity.

With all the confusion out there, I wouldn’t say that a particular format makes any more sense than another. Only if there is a standardized format within an industry or setting, and only when the vast majority of readers know which standard is always used, can there be a format that truly makes more sense than any others.

No, this really does make more sense: it’s ordered most significant to least significant, and you can drop things off the end if you need less precision. If you sort it lexically, it’s also sorted chronologically. Pretty much the only reason not to use it is because americans don’t like change.

Compare:
2015-01-06T13:30
01/06/15 1:30
06/01/15 1:30
15/06/01 1:30
15/01/06 1:30

Which is the confusing one, again?

[PotomacCyclist]

In your two posts, you mixed up the months and dates. One post is different from the other. That’s part of the confusion right there. In the real world, because of the lack of practical standardization, there will be confusion with any particular format, as you just displayed.

[mstone]

@PotomacCyclist 103902 wrote:

In your two posts, you mixed up the months and dates. One post is different from the other. That’s part of the confusion right there. In the real world, because of the lack of practical standardization, there will be confusion with any particular format, as you just displayed.

I didn’t mistype anything. I said that there is no system that uses YYYY-DD-MM, which is why there’s nothing to confuse. The example date (2015-01-06) matches the standard representation (YYYY-MM-DD).

[PotomacCyclist]

To have a new standardized system, you would have to change more than just the traditional American system. International systems don’t always use a year/month/day format either. Sometimes the year is placed first. Sometimes it’s placed after.

In theory, if you started from scratch and created a “logical” system to be used by everyone, it might make more sense. But unless everyone is certain that there is a new standard format, people will still have to wonder about the month/date order. It’s not enough just to say Americans are resistant to change (which some are). If there is international communication, say email among U.S. and non-U.S. parties and the locations aren’t always clear, how do people tell which system is being used for any particular email.

Even with email chains between U.S. users, forwarded messages and replies sometimes get converted to UTC timestamps for some reason. Maybe when they get bounced to other servers. The lack of standardization is the problem and that won’t get fixed with any particular format. If everyone had always followed the same format, there would never be any confusion. Since that isn’t the case, confusion remains in situations where different formats get mixed up.

[mstone]

@PotomacCyclist 103910 wrote:

To have a new standardized system, you would have to change more than just the traditional American system. International systems don’t always use a year/month/day format either. Sometimes the year is placed first. Sometimes it’s placed after.[/quote]

Um, it isn’t new. It was introduced in 1988, superseding ISO 2014 which was adopted in 1976 (and recommended in 1971). It just takes a very long time for sensible things to become common. Progress is happening, and internet dates now use a compatible subset of ISO 8601. (RFC 3339)

Quote:

If there is international communication, say email among U.S. and non-U.S. parties and the locations aren’t always clear, how do people tell which system is being used for any particular email.

That’s why you go with the unambiguous international standard instead of the historical local format.

[Author]

Replies