People who were born in the beginning of a decade, do you hate it when some people lump you with people born in the ending of a decade?

For example: If you were born in 1990, you're tired of being lumped with people born in 1999.

When 9/11 happened, you were 11 while they were 2.

You started middle school in 2001 (2000, if your middle school started with 5th grade) while they started middle school in 2010 (2009, if your middle school started with 5th grade)

When you graduated high school in 2008/2009, they completed 2nd/3rd grade.

You became a teenager in 2003 while they became one in 2012.

Some of you have graduated from college while they haven't even entered college yet.

Some of you are in your mid 20s (If your birthday was early) while some of them are in their mid teens (If their birthday was early).

Back to the question, do you hate it when that happens?

Yes.

Yes.
have you told people that you can't relate to them at all?

have you told people that you can't relate to them at all?


Told who that? People born in the later '90s? No...I don't really know many people born in that age bracket.

Told who that? People born in the later '90s? No...I don't really know many people born in that age bracket.
No, I mean have you told older people that you can't relate to people who are almost 10 years younger than you?

My answer is no.

I was born close to the start of the 60s. If people want to lump me in with people born in 1968 or 1969.... Mmmm OK. I don't really care...

If people want to lump me in with someone born in 1958 or 543BC... Umm OK
Why does it matter? What is it that bothers people?

maybe I just don't get this stuff... :-\\

Ohhh. I mean, it doesn't really come up that often outside of these kinds of threads on the internet.

I'll just say it gets annoying when someone older throws out a comment like "OMG 1990? That still feels like yesterday to me! In my mind you should still be a little kid!" Yet 1989 doesn't get that same treatment...it's like the time I've spent on this planet is insignificant compared someone just a year or so older and who I would consider a peer.

I'd also like to add this is probably a recent phenomenon that applies only to kids born in 1990 or possibly 2000 by now. As I'm sure the older members/decadology police would say when they see this thread, "I don't get it, back in our day it didn't matter if someone was born in 1969 or 1970, we didn't waste our time worrying about nonsense like this." But when they were our age there was no internet to start flame wars about this kind of stuff and argue about '70s nostalgia. I should ask my mom (b. 1958) if she ever thought of people born in 1960 as seeming like babies...although when you get to be her age, I suppose getting lumped in with younger people would actually be a good thing :D

My answer is no.

I was born close to the start of the 60s. If people want to lump me in with people born in 1968 or 1969.... Mmmm OK. I don't really care...

If people want to lump me in with someone born in 1958 or 543BC... Umm OK
Why does it matter? What is it that bothers people?

maybe I just don't get this stuff... :-\\


Exactly this....

Doesn't this topic belong in " Less Than a Decade"?  :D

Ohhh. I mean, it doesn't really come up that often outside of these kinds of threads on the internet.

I'll just say it gets annoying when someone older throws out a comment like "OMG 1990? That still feels like yesterday to me! In my mind you should still be a little kid!" Yet 1989 doesn't get that same treatment...it's like the time I've spent on this planet is insignificant compared someone just a year or so older and who I would consider a peer. I think people are just so hung up on the stereotypes that each decade represents and therefore January 1, 1990 would conjure a whole different set of cultural images than December 31, 1989 would for the average person. In their minds 1990 probably has more in common with 1999 than it does with '89 despite a difference of 1 year vs. 9 years simply because they are in the same decade...and hence the "lumping".

I'd also like to add this is probably a recent phenomenon that applies only to kids born in 1990 or possibly 2000 by now. As I'm sure the older members/decadology police would say when they see this thread, "I don't get it, back in our day it didn't matter if someone was born in 1969 or 1970, we didn't waste our time worrying about nonsense like this." But when they were our age there was no internet to start flame wars about this kind of stuff and argue about '70s nostalgia. I should ask my mom (b. 1958) if she ever thought of people born in 1960 as seeming like babies...although when you get to be her age, I suppose getting lumped in with younger people would actually be a good thing :D
yeah, I would never lump you with people 9 years younger than you. Besides, you relate to people who are 1 to 4 years older than you. Another thing, while you turning 18, they weren't even turning 10.


My answer is no.

I was born close to the start of the 60s. If people want to lump me in with people born in 1968 or 1969.... Mmmm OK. I don't really care...

If people want to lump me in with someone born in 1958 or 543BC... Umm OK
Why does it matter? What is it that bothers people?

maybe I just don't get this stuff... :-\\
I think you don't because from what Mark said, in your day, no one started flame wars with each other and older people wasn't worrying about how old some younger people were.

yeah, I would never lump you with people 9 years younger than you. Besides, you relate to people who are 1 to 4 years older than you. Another thing, while you turning 18, they weren't even turning 10.
I think you don't because from what Mark said, in your day, no one started flame wars with each other and older people wasn't worrying about how old some younger people were.


Asking people from my generation this question in this topic would be almost the same thing as if I asked them "what do you think about pink and green gorillas diving into a pool of pretzels, fruit loops and cherry Kool aid while they sang a Sinatra song in Korean."
It is something we never discussed, thought about... And it wasn't even in the realm of possibility to be discussed or even considered. I think it might an issue, thought or idea...something important or meaningful to the younger ones, like yourself. It's so very foreign to me.

Asking people from my generation this question in this topic would be almost the same thing as if I asked them "what do you think about pink and green gorillas diving into a pool of pretzels, fruit loops and cherry Kool aid while they sang a Sinatra song in Korean."
It is something we never discussed, thought about... And it wasn't even in the realm of possibility to be discussed or even considered. I think it might an issue, thought or idea...something important or meaningful to the younger ones, like yourself. It's so very foreign to me.
  ;D ;D ;D ;D This was funny

Exactly this....

Doesn't this topic belong in " Less Than a Decade"?  :D


Yes.

I was born in 1974, I was born in the middle of the decade.

I was born in 1974, I was born in the middle of the decade.
have you been lumped with people born in 1979 by other people before?

have you been lumped with people born in 1979 by other people before?


I don't think so.

Huh?

I was born near the end of a decade.  Am I any more important than someone born at the beginning of the decade? 

YES! 

I reign supreme and all those born before me MUST OBEY MY EVERY COMMAND!!

I'll just say it gets annoying when someone older throws out a comment like "OMG 1990? That still feels like yesterday to me! In my mind you should still be a little kid!"


Do you still encounter such questions or reactions when you meet people? This sounds a bit strange to me, since even older people now realize that the 90s and especially 1990-1995 is a long time ago. As for me, 1990 does not sound that young anymore as it did years ago when nearly everybody in my environment was at least born in the 80s or earlier.

I'd also like to add this is probably a recent phenomenon that applies only to kids born in 1990 or possibly 2000 by now.


I also think it's also maybe because of the fact that the 90s was the last (and therefore the most recent) decade which was actually a real decade in most people's minds.
In 1994, 1970 sounded much older than 1990 does today.

Do you still encounter such questions or reactions when you meet people? This sounds a bit strange to me, since even older people now realize that the 90s and especially 1990-1995 is a long time ago. As for me, 1990 does not sound that young anymore as it did years ago when nearly everybody in my environment was at least born in the 80s or earlier.


I'm not saying it's an everyday occurrence, but it has happened. One time about a year ago I was at a bar and the girl checking our IDs noted our birth years and said "omg you guys are such babies!" (I was with people born in '90-'91)...The weird part was she didn't look much older than us, but appearances can be deceiving.

When I was young, we didn't even HAVE decades. The only way we could tell what time it was from our sundials. We didn't have internet or phones or anything. When we wanted to communicate l long distance, we used smoke signals. And we rode our dinosaurs to work. And we had to walk 10 miles in 6 feet of snow up hill both ways barefoot because we didn't have shoes. They weren't invented yet.



Cat

When I was young, we didn't even HAVE decades. The only way we could tell what time it was from our sundials. We didn't have internet or phones or anything. When we wanted to communicate l long distance, we used smoke signals. And we rode our dinosaurs to work. And we had to walk 10 miles in 6 feet of snow up hill both ways barefoot because we didn't have shoes. They weren't invented yet.


Cat


You had dinosaurs? ..you were lucky....

Sundial?? Our planet had no sun and it was pitch dark all the time.

We had to work 28 hours a day just to pay for one smoke signal. We slept in a minefield, we woke up two days before we went to sleep, swam an ocean in -30 degree weather with only parts of a potato sack as clothing, ran 20 miles uphill during a blizzard on patches of ice just to get to school and the teacher would throw darts at us all day and every time we got hit we yelled out "Hallelujah, more darts please".

You had dinosaurs? ..you were lucky....

Sundial?? Our planet had no sun and it was pitch dark all the time.

We had to work 28 hours a day just to pay for one smoke signal. We slept in a minefield, we woke up two days before we went to sleep, swam an ocean in -30 degree weather with only parts of a potato sack as clothing, ran 20 miles uphill during a blizzard on patches of ice just to get to school and the teacher would throw darts at us all day and every time we got hit we yelled out "Hallelujah, more darts please".


Luxury.  You can't have smoke signals when you can't spare breathing oxygen for something as frivolous as fire.  We had to piss on the carbon dioxide that had condensed out of the atmosphere into dry ice at -140 degrees.  There were no potato sacks for clothing, because they shattered in the cold, and besides, nobody had farmed a potato for at least a decade or two.  But we ran our 40 miles uphill as the CO2 condensed out of the atmosphere, made it to school, where the teacher couldn't even afford darts and had to bludgeon us to death every day with her frostbitten arms. 

And you try and tell the Homeland Generation (you know, the generation after the Millennials, who know only the opulence of a nation that has been in a state of never-ending war since before they could speak a word of English) about that ... and they won't believe you.

Do not fret about the time you are born, you have a life and it is God's Gracious Gift!

I was born near the end of a decade.  Am I any more important than someone born at the beginning of the decade? 

YES! 

I reign supreme and all those born before me MUST OBEY MY EVERY COMMAND!!


;D

Do not fret about the time you are born, you have a life and it is God's Gracious Gift!


Exactly.

I don't think it just happens with people born in 1990 getting tired of being lumped with people born in 1999, I think it also happens with people born in 1980 getting tired of being lumped with people born in 1989.

Seriously?  And who in the heck is doing all this "lumping"?    I have never seen anyone try to say the two are the same except for people like you who start stupid threads like this.  Get out of the house, find a hobby.  Dude, really, there are more important things in the world, trust me.

I'll have two lumps of sugar in my tea please.

Seriously?  And who in the heck is doing all this "lumping"?    I have never seen anyone try to say the two are the same except for people like you who start stupid threads like this.  Get out of the house, find a hobby.  Dude, really, there are more important things in the world, trust me.
Some older people because they see the 9 in the third digit and not the 0 in the fourth digit. A person born in 1990 would relate more to someone born in 1989 than someone born in 1999.

I was born in 1974, I was born in the middle of the decade.


I was born in 1976, close to the end of the decade, and I never felt lumped in with the kids who were born in 1970.

Some older people because they see the 9 in the third digit and not the 0 in the fourth digit. A person born in 1990 would relate more to someone born in 1989 than someone born in 1999.


But if there was a 9 in the 2nd digit, an 0 in the 3rd digit, and a 6 in the 9th digit, would digits 4 and 5 equal the sum of the hypotenuse divided by the mass index plus 4?  And if so, does it lead to the conclusion that round numbers are circular and square numbers have edges?

But if there was a 9 in the 2nd digit, an 0 in the 3rd digit, and a 6 in the 9th digit, would digits 4 and 5 equal the sum of the hypotenuse divided by the mass index plus 4?  And if so, does it lead to the conclusion that round numbers are circular and square numbers have edges?


A sphere 5.5 metres in diameter is filled with 1m diameter hemi-spheres.

a:(1) What is the theoretical maximum amount of hemi-spheres that can be crammed into the big sphere given that the following condition is met:
Each hemi-sphere's flat side (which I'll now refer to as its 'disc') has a central point (indicated by the white point shown in the hemisphere diagram to the right). The point must not 'see' another hemisphere's disc. By definition, when I say 'see', the simplest thing to imagine is a straight ultra-thin 'laser light' coming from the disc. This 'light' must not reach another disc. However, if there's another hemi-sphere that's 'blocking' the 'line of sight', then this is accepted.

(2) By cramming them as efficiently as possible, a relatively small volume will be left. How large is this volume?

b: Same question, except the torch now has a 52.72077938642 (that's 90/(1+(0.5^0.5))) 'degree of sight'. This 'cone' of light extends from the exact centre of the disc and is once again not allowed to 'see' any part of another disc. What is the maximum amount of hemisphere's that can be crammed into the mega-sphere now?

c: Same question again, except the whole disc acts as a tubular beacon of light. This thick ray must not 'see' another hemisphere's disc. What is the maximum amount of hemisphere's that can be crammed into the mega-sphere now? 

http://static.someecards.com/someecards/usercards/1340050882014_3068657.png

Seriously?  And who in the heck is doing all this "lumping"?    I have never seen anyone try to say the two are the same except for people like you who start stupid threads like this.  Get out of the house, find a hobby.  Dude, really, there are more important things in the world, trust me.


and how do you lump? ???

I was born in 1976, close to the end of the decade, and I never felt lumped in with the kids who were born in 1970.
I say you can relate to Howard and possibly people born in 1971/72. Also have you met anyone who was born in 1970?



and how do you lump? ???
By putting people into groups. thats what lumping is.

A sphere 5.5 metres in diameter is filled with 1m diameter hemi-spheres.

a:(1) What is the theoretical maximum amount of hemi-spheres that can be crammed into the big sphere given that the following condition is met:
Each hemi-sphere's flat side (which I'll now refer to as its 'disc') has a central point (indicated by the white point shown in the hemisphere diagram to the right). The point must not 'see' another hemisphere's disc. By definition, when I say 'see', the simplest thing to imagine is a straight ultra-thin 'laser light' coming from the disc. This 'light' must not reach another disc. However, if there's another hemi-sphere that's 'blocking' the 'line of sight', then this is accepted.

(2) By cramming them as efficiently as possible, a relatively small volume will be left. How large is this volume?

b: Same question, except the torch now has a 52.72077938642 (that's 90/(1+(0.5^0.5))) 'degree of sight'. This 'cone' of light extends from the exact centre of the disc and is once again not allowed to 'see' any part of another disc. What is the maximum amount of hemisphere's that can be crammed into the mega-sphere now?

c: Same question again, except the whole disc acts as a tubular beacon of light. This thick ray must not 'see' another hemisphere's disc. What is the maximum amount of hemisphere's that can be crammed into the mega-sphere now? 

http://static.someecards.com/someecards/usercards/1340050882014_3068657.png
http://narcissistsblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/pool_balls.png

I say you can relate to Howard and possibly people born in 1971/72. Also have you met anyone who was born in 1970?


Being also born in the 6-year I have to admit that I have always felt a connection to people born from 1980-89. I was probably wrong about those being born in 1980-81, because 5-6 years is quite a gap.

To be honest, 1990 was a big gap, but only in my mind and when I was younger. It was a psychological thing...

Being also born in the 6-year I have to admit that I have always felt a connection to people born from 1980-89. I was probably wrong about those being born in 1980-81, because 5-6 years is quite a gap.

To be honest, 1990 was a big gap, but only in my mind and when I was younger. It was a psychological thing...
I say the earliest people you can relate to are people who were born in 1981 and the latest are people who were born in 1991.

I say the earliest people you can relate to are people who were born in 1981 and the latest are people who were born in 1991.


Nowadays I can relate to anybody who is at least 18 and who is not older than 40.

Nowadays I can relate to anybody who is at least 18 and who is not older than 40.


I can relate to people who are older than 35.

I say you can relate to Howard and possibly people born in 1971/72. Also have you met anyone who was born in 1970?

By putting people into groups. thats what lumping is.
It is not lumping, it is Social Identity.

It is not lumping, it is Social Identity.
and social identity would be people who have some things in common with each other right?

In my close circle of friends our ages range from 25 to 44... and everything in between. We get along famously. That's a 2 decade gap in birth years. It just depends how you keep with the times. They all love it when I go on about my old 80s groups and tv shows.

I was born in 1960.  I don't get "lumped in" with people born in 1969 because our generations are different.  It does bother me at times to get "lumped in" with people born in the late '40s; they were the original baby boomers, I'm a "late boomer".  For example, they were old enough to go to Woodstock, whereas I was only 9 when it happened...  ::)

and social identity would be people who have some things in common with each other right?


Exactly.

Exactly.
In your opinion, do you relate to people born in 1969 and 1979?

In my opinion it depends:

When it comes to childhood memories I can only relate to people who are 1-2 years younger or older, no more no less. I have friends who were born in late 1987 and they already relate to some different (later) things from the 90s I was already too old for. When it comes to teenage years, maybe 3-4 years as a maximum. For the early adult life I think 5-10 years is not too wrong.

In your opinion, do you relate to people born in 1969 and 1979?


I think I relate to people who were born after 1980.
This is because I lived the 80's.

I think I relate to people who were born after 1980.
This is because I lived the 80's.
How far can it go for people born after 1980?


In my opinion it depends:

When it comes to childhood memories I can only relate to people who are 1-2 years younger or older, no more no less. I have friends who were born in late 1987 and they already relate to some different (later) things from the 90s I was already too old for. When it comes to teenage years, maybe 3-4 years as a maximum. For the early adult life I think 5-10 years is not too wrong.
Do you have any friends born in 1976 and 1996?

Do you have any friends born in 1976 and 1996?


I have a friend online who was born in 1978, but no friends born in the 90s.
The people I regularly meet were born in 1989 at latest.

I have a friend online who was born in 1978, but no friends born in the 90s.
The people I regularly meet were born in 1989 at latest.
Cool. I have friends that range from 1974 to 1998.

I think this topic has more than ran it's course..there isn't much more that you can say to the question other than Yes it bothers me/No not really.
Although I gotta say since I am one of those that had sundials and dinosaurs, perhaps I just didn't understand the indepth analysis that could be performed on this topic.