MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1750679.2ZqEPETxMv@crushinator>
References: <CAPg+sBh1_mYH4JNv1xTFnLsoC=qzmgi0QaLAyd7YeQ=wZQBDSQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJHLa0P9SmynBfJ94A1js30j2OsC0PeEhEy-n+6Wa2Sogo+TNw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAC1+kJPUxNn0iSz=c3OTCFS26sg2jxS-goUdE7LSKphtE9owKw@mail.gmail.com>
	<1750679.2ZqEPETxMv@crushinator>
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2014 13:28:21 +0200
Message-ID: <CAC1+kJP+S8busSkQrxuW-3bU8zkJEXXPZ1G=cRGADj8CKgYSjA@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Tim=F3n?= <jtimon@monetize.io>
To: Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.name>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Finite monetary supply for Bitcoin
Precedence: list

On 4/5/14, Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.name> wrote:
> On Saturday, 5 April 2014, at 12:21 pm, Jorge Tim=F3n wrote:
>> I like both DD-MM-YYYY and YYYY-MM-DD. I just dislike MM-DD-YYYY and
>> YYYY-DD-MM.
>
> Your preferences reflect a cultural bias. The only entirely numeric date
> format that is unambiguous across all cultures is YYYY-MM-DD. (No culture
> uses YYYY-DD-MM, or at least the ISO seems to think so.)

Probably my acceptance of DD-MM-YYYY is caused by cultural bias.
The ISO YYYY-MM-DD seems what you normally do with indo-arabic
numerals: put the more weighted numbers on the left, so I guess it's
the most universal (in addition to being standard).

--=20
Jorge Tim=F3n

http://freico.in/