Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Let's stop counting centuries

dynomight.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 449 posts

Re: Let's stop counting centuries

#11

Post by milliams »

It's easy, we should have simply started counting centuries from zero. Centuries should be zero-indexed, then everything works.

We do the same with people's ages. For the entire initial year of your life you were zero years old. Likewise, from years 0-99, zero centuries had passed so we should call it the zeroth century!

At least this is how I justify to my students that zero-indexing makes sense. Everyone's fought the x-century vs x-hundreds before so they welcome relief.

Izzard had the right idea: https://youtu.be/uVMGPMu596Y?si=1aKZ2xRavJgOmgE8&t=643

Re: Let's stop counting centuries

#12

Post by networked »

James_K wrote: post #8

One point, the singular they has been in use for centuries, where this essay suggests it's a recent invention.

The essay doesn't really say anything about when the singular "they" was invented. What it says is that it used to be low-status and unsophisticated language.

> In the 1970s, fancy people would have sniffed at using “they” rather than “he” for a single person of unknown sex like this. But today, fancy people would sniff at not doing that. How did that happen?

> I think “they” climbed the prestige ladder—people slowly adopted it in gradually more formal and higher-status situations until it was everywhere.

Re: Let's stop counting centuries

#13

Post by wryoak »

I thought this article was railing against the lumping together of entire spans of hundreds of years as being alike (ie, we lump together 1901 and 1999 under the name ”the 1900s” despite their sharing only numerical similarity), and was interested until I learned the author’s real, much less interesting intention

Re: Let's stop counting centuries

#14

Post by readthenotes1 »

semireg wrote: post #6
gcp123 wrote: post #2

Author makes a good point. "1700s" is both more intuitive and more concise than "18th century". The very first episode of Alex Trebeck's Jeopardy in 1984 illustrates how confusing this can be: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDTxS9_CwZA The "Final Jeopardy" question simply asked on what date did the 20th century begin, and all three contestants got it wrong, leading to a 3-way tie.

The right answer was, and still is: Jan 1, 1901

How can that be if 15 of those centuries are on the Julian calendar?

Re: Let's stop counting centuries

#16

Post by endofreach »

wryoak wrote: post #13

I thought this article was railing against the lumping together of entire spans of hundreds of years as being alike (ie, we lump together 1901 and 1999 under the name ”the 1900s” despite their sharing only numerical similarity), and was interested until I learned the author’s real, much less interesting intention

Many people find their own thoughts more interesting than the ones of others. Some write. Many don't.

Re: Let's stop counting centuries

#17

Post by wavemode »

I do tend to say "the XX00s", since it's almost always significantly clearer than "the (XX+1)th century".

> There’s no good way to refer to 2000-2009, sorry.

This isn't really an argument against the new convention, since even in the old convention there was no convenient way of doing so.

People mostly just say "the early 2000s" or explicitly reference a range of years. Very occasionally you'll hear "the aughts".

Re: Let's stop counting centuries

#18

Post by conception »

wavemode wrote: post #17

I do tend to say "the XX00s", since it's almost always significantly clearer than "the (XX+1)th century". > There’s no good way to refer to 2000-2009, sorry. This isn't really an argument against the new convention, since even in the old convention there was no convenient way of doing so. People mostly just say "the early 2000s" or explicitly reference a range of years. Very occasionally you'll hear "the aughts".

The 2000-2009’s are the aughts!

Re: Let's stop counting centuries

#19

Post by buzzy_hacker »

conception wrote: post #18
wavemode wrote: post #17

I do tend to say "the XX00s", since it's almost always significantly clearer than "the (XX+1)th century". > There’s no good way to refer to 2000-2009, sorry. This isn't really an argument against the new convention, since even in the old convention there was no convenient way of doing so. People mostly just say "the early 2000s" or explicitly reference a range of years. Very occasionally you'll hear "the aughts".

The 2000-2009’s are the aughts!

The noughties!

Re: Let's stop counting centuries

#20

Post by drivers99 »

gcp123 wrote: post #2

Author makes a good point. "1700s" is both more intuitive and more concise than "18th century". The very first episode of Alex Trebeck's Jeopardy in 1984 illustrates how confusing this can be: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDTxS9_CwZA The "Final Jeopardy" question simply asked on what date did the 20th century begin, and all three contestants got it wrong, leading to a 3-way tie.

There are numerous common concise ways to write the 18th century, at the risk of needing the right context to be understood, including “C18th”, “18c.”, or even “XVIII” by itself.
Post reply on HN