Because Signal surely isn't based on works from 80s, yes.

You guys remember when Sony made tiny handheld AM radios?

I read CS papers from the late '80s/early '90s and it feels like unearthing cuneiform tablets. Lots of good ideas, just everything felt so raw and new.

...it's 31 years ago

fuck you. 1994 was 10 years ago, not 30.

There is nothing wrong with it other than it makes me feel ancient and I don’t like it.

It sounds weird, given that 1994 was like 30 years ago, not 130 years. I'd personally say "late 90s" rather than late 1900s. If i was referring to the 19th century, then yea I may say late 1800s for 1894. There isn't anything wrong with it, it just sounds weird and makes a lot of people feel old as shit. Most people would say late 90s I think. I feel that you'd get a weird look if you referred to 1994 as the late 1900s in casual conversation.

To answer the question: The professor assumes the email referred to 1900-1910 with "late 1900s". As this was normal 20 years ago (and still gets used). He then gets upset realising the age difference between him and his student was likely the main contributor to this incorrect assumption.

To ask a question back: From https://www.bucknell.edu/fac-staff/john-penniman, I read:

John Penniman is Associate Professor and chair of Religious Studies

I would say for religious studies it should be fine. But also for other areas, why can't you use 1994 papers?

It's the late 20th century, or the 1990s.

I'd take "late 1900s" as 1906-1910.

From last millenium.

"1900s" makes me think they're referring to the decade of 1900-1909 😅

Not what you asked, but I find turn of the century most jarring.

"Oh, no, not that late, actually."

Before computing got poisoned.

In the late millennium

Nickelback is classic rock.

Kids these days will be easy prey for the Goblin King.

Hey now, 1995 will always be 10 years ago. Always.