>>51794348>mocking something I already correctedChuckle aside, that image is also from Wikipedia. I even went looking for it, and found quite a bit of context for why people online say it's 97. However, I haven't actually met anyone in person who says it's 97, they're often inclined to say between the ranges of 99 and 2002.
I suppose ultimately, the problem I have is that anyone born in the 90s has a pretty damn different experience growing up to anyone in the mid 2000s, which makes the classification incredibly difficult and kind of pointless if you place the end point in 97.
