Yes, and their shorthand versions, like writing 9/4, have the same problem of being ambiguous.

You keep missing the point and moving the goal posts, so I'll just politely exit here and wish you well. Peace.

Yes and YYYY-MM-DD can potentially be interpreted as YYYY-DD-MM. So that is an zero argument.

No country uses "year day month" ordered dates as standard. "Month day year, " on the other hand, has huge use. It's the conventions that cause the potential for ambiguity and confusion.

That is great for your team, but I don't think that your team has a size large enough to have any kind of statistically relevance at all. So it is a great example for a specific use case but not an argument for general use at all.

Entire countries, like China, Japan, Korea, etc., use YYYY-MM-DD as their date standard already.

My point was that once you adjust, it actually isn't painful to use as it first appears it could be, and has great advantages. I didn't say there wasn't an adjustment hurdle that many people would bawk at.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_date_formats_by_country

DDMMYY is perfect for daily usage.

Except that DDMMYY has the huge ambiguity issue of people potentially interpreting it as MMDDYY. And it's not straight sortable.

My team switched to using YYYY-MM-DD in all our inner communication and documents. The "daily date use" is not the issue you think it is.

Huh? I run SmartTube beta on my phone. I don't recall having to do anything "magic" to get it working.

A very stable genius unstable weirdo.

We must read very different sources. For example, I've seen plenty of articles and videos just this week for Samsung's 1,000 km EV battery with its 20 year life span, and 9-minute charging. If you consider those combined features incremental, then I can see why you're frustrated. It's already in production, and has been delivered to "customers. Samsung are even gearing up for out-sourced mass manufacturing. That's well beyond some theoretical lab experiment that has no chance of seeing the light of day.

I don't disagree with you about the 99% over-hype being a PITA. But to adamantly state you're seeing nothing reported on, while admitting you "could've just missed them" doesn't sound convincing. Besides, it only takes a single article for you to be wrong about it being "never."

I have never said or intended to imply that there were no advances made in the last 20 or 30 years.

This would be great news if it was commercialy viable, but it isn't. It NEVER is.

That's pretty definite by any measure.

But I get it. 99% of the announcements go nowhere. And it's worse if an announcement is just hype or hyperbole. However, in science we have to do the 99% to find the 1% of true advancements.

So of if your point is just that you don't like the hyperbole, then using hyperbole yourself is not doing yourself any favour. Of course people are going to be more measured and realistic in reply to your blatant over-statements and denials.

It doesn't matter what the majority wants in regards to your claim of no deaths. That's just unfullfilled hopes and wishes.

We're talking about the reality right now. And the reality is that the repeal has directly given the "extremists" the power to cause more maternal deaths, as you just acknowledged.

Again, you're talking about different issues.

They're separate arguments from your original claim that RvW is not life threatening.

And while risk of death is fortunately relatively low in the US, it's only one of the many negative consequences of the repeal.

Many women survive the birth only to be inflicted with any one of a range of physical medical issues, including life long disability and chronic pain.

There's also deep mental issues that arise.

Likewise, there are the potential negative health concerns for the baby to consider.

On top of that, there's all the many socio-economic problems.

I'm not saying there are easy answers to all this, but I'm not minimizing the issues either.

One in 3,000 women die from pregnancy or birth complications in the US each year.

Making women remain pregnant inevitably causes deaths.

Yep, and before Pelosi, Trump said it was Nikki Haley who caused it.

Man, I just need Trump to blame Taylor Swift for the whole thing, and then my Insurrection-Bingo card will be full!