top | item 44997504 (no title) drc500free | 6 months ago The part where Gen-X is younger, maybe? discuss order hn newest jdiff|6 months ago It's perplexing, to put it generously, but it doesn't throw the semantics of the entire sentence into question. crazygringo|6 months ago For all we know the document is from two decades ago. jdiff|6 months ago Two decades ago makes the GenZ reference confusing, as the very oldest of them by the most generous definition would be only 9 years old.With a span across 50 years, that range from Gen X to Gen Z is just awkward to place as "young buyers of Monster" at any point in time.
jdiff|6 months ago It's perplexing, to put it generously, but it doesn't throw the semantics of the entire sentence into question.
crazygringo|6 months ago For all we know the document is from two decades ago. jdiff|6 months ago Two decades ago makes the GenZ reference confusing, as the very oldest of them by the most generous definition would be only 9 years old.With a span across 50 years, that range from Gen X to Gen Z is just awkward to place as "young buyers of Monster" at any point in time.
jdiff|6 months ago Two decades ago makes the GenZ reference confusing, as the very oldest of them by the most generous definition would be only 9 years old.With a span across 50 years, that range from Gen X to Gen Z is just awkward to place as "young buyers of Monster" at any point in time.
jdiff|6 months ago
crazygringo|6 months ago
jdiff|6 months ago
With a span across 50 years, that range from Gen X to Gen Z is just awkward to place as "young buyers of Monster" at any point in time.