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

261–270 of 449 posts

Re: Let's stop counting centuries

#261

Post by kergonath »

mixmastamyk wrote: post #153
kergonath wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I’d say revolutions that created large modern states would be among them. The Russian revolution as well. And the Chinese one. It’s quite difficult to make sense of the late 20th century (yes, I know) without them. Or the early 21th.

Agreed, and it doesn't mean memorizing a date as folks here keep mentioning. The nearest decade is fine in most cases.

Indeed. The order of things (what influenced what, and what directly caused what) is much more important than the accurate date

Re: Let's stop counting centuries

#262

Post by HPsquared »

mjmahone17 wrote: post #54
Uehreka wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, we don't. But practically speaking we usually do. I always hear people refer to events in their life happening “when I was 26” and never “in the 27th year of my life”. Sure you could say the latter, but practically speaking people don’t (at least in English).

“Half one” is archaic English, and common German, for 12:30. Similarly “my 27th year” just sounds archaic to me: I wonder if you went through a bunch of 19th century writing if you’d see ages more often be “Xth year” vs “X-1 years old”. There may be something cultural that caused such a shift, like a change in how math or reading is taught (or even that it’s nearly universally taught, which changes how we think and s…

A lot of European languages say "I have x years" instead of "I am x years old". It emphasises the "milestone" nature, as in "I have x full years".

Re: Let's stop counting centuries

#263

Post by jdhzzz »

zepolen wrote: post #222
tempodox wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can change the world if you make it easier to meet a need enough people have. Persuading everyone they're holding it wrong is not that.

Those are exactly the same thing if you convince everyone they are holding it wrong by holding it right.

e.g. Fosbury flop (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fosbury_flop)

Re: Let's stop counting centuries

#264

Post by danschuller »

ash wrote: post #243

The article does not really resolve the ambiguity with 2000s which usually means 2000-2009, not 2000-2099. That said, in Finnish language people never count centuries. It's always "2000-luku" and "1900-luku", not 21th and 20th.

It means that now but that meaning will fade away as the decades advance.

Re: Let's stop counting centuries

#266

Post by kazinator »

> No one gets confused about what “the 1700s” means.

Well, there are a few longtermists who do. Do you mean the 01700s? Or some other 1700s that have been cut to four digits for conversational convenience?

:)

When someone's salary depends on being confused, there are ways to dissuade them. But when it's their hobby, forget it.

Re: Let's stop counting centuries

#268

Post by greenbit »

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".

How about the 20-ohs?

Think of how individual years are named. Back in for example 2004, "two thousand and four" was probably the most prevalent style. But "two thousand and .." is kind of a mouthful, even if you omit the 'and' part.

Over time, people will find a shorter way. When 2050 arrives, how many people are going to call it "two thousand and fifty"? I'd almost bet money you'll hear it said "twenty fifty". Things already seem to be headed this way.

The "twenty ___" style leads to the first ten years being 20-oh-this and 20-oh-that, so there you have it, the 20-ohs.

(Yes, pretty much the same thing as 20-aughts, gotta admit)

Re: Let's stop counting centuries

#269

Post by Detrytus »

naniwaduni wrote: post #96
drdec wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On your sixth birthday we put a big 5 on your cake and call you a 5 year old all year. If you are going to be that pedantic, I would point out that one only has one birthday. (Well, unless one's mother is extremely unlucky.)

"Birthday" does not mean the same thing as "date of birth".

“Birthday” is just short for “birth day anniversary”, I guess…

Re: Let's stop counting centuries

#270

Post by MobiusHorizons »

> there's no good way to write 2000 - 2009

I have heard people use "the aughts" to refer to this time range [1]. I guess if I was trying to be specific about which century one could say "the two thousand aughts" or "the eighteen hundred aughts". But I think in that context i'd be more likely to say "in the first decade of the 1800s"

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aughts

Post reply on HN