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

331–340 of 449 posts

Re: Let's stop counting centuries

#331

Post by MostlyStable »

jonathan_landy wrote: post #317
swyx wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

oooor we can slowly migrate towards sensibility as we did celsius and centimeters

Re temp, I’m glad we use F for daily life in the USA. The most common application I have for temp is to understand the weather and I like the 0-100 range for F as that’s the typical range for weather near me. For scientific work I obviously prefer kelvin. Celsius is nearly useless.

I agree that for weather F is better, but I don't think it's so much better as to be worth having two different temp scales, and unlike K, C is at least reasonable for weather, and it works fine for most scientific disciplines.

Re: Let's stop counting centuries

#332

Post by im3w1l »

mixmastamyk wrote: post #259
Dalewyn wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As very broad subjects? Yes. But any particular factoid about them is practically irrelevant for most people who don't actually have anything to do with that factoid. Hell, I would even go as far as to say the American Revolution is irrelevant even for most Americans because it has nothing of practical value. We (Americans) all know about it to varying degrees, but again that is due to growing up and being indoctrina…

"Nothing is important to know besides my lunch time..." yawn

This is such a boring dismissal of a very interesting subject - what information is important to whom and why.

A pretty important reason for learning about the history of democracy is to learn how and why to preserve it.

Re: Let's stop counting centuries

#333

Post by navane »

PopAlongKid wrote: post #301
navane wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I call them the two thousand zeroes (2000s). Or, when people ask me from which year my car is, I say two thousand zero -- emphasizing the smallest digit.

Why not twenty hundred for 2000, just like 1900 is nineteen hundred? Similarly, I never understood why people still say things like "two thousand ten" instead of twenty-ten for year 2010. No one ever went around saying "one thousand nine hundred ten" for 1910, did they?

I don't think they said ten hundred for the year 1000 either. I do use the twenty a for individual years though.

Re: Let's stop counting centuries

#334

Post by dantyti »

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.

What about languages that don’t have an equivalent to “the Xs” for decades or centuries?

Also, 1799 is obviosly more than 1700, as well as 1701 > 1700 – why should the naming convention tie itself to the lesser point? After one’s third birthday, the person is starting their fourth year and is not living in their third year.

I feel this is relevant https://xkcd.com/927/

Re: Let's stop counting centuries

#335

Post by prerok »

beachy wrote: post #324
jonathan_landy wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Re temp, I’m glad we use F for daily life in the USA. The most common application I have for temp is to understand the weather and I like the 0-100 range for F as that’s the typical range for weather near me. For scientific work I obviously prefer kelvin. Celsius is nearly useless.

> Celsius is nearly useless. That's like ... your opinion man. Personally I like knowing that water boils at exactly 100 degrees.

At sea level, yes :)

I do agree, though I live in Europe and C is the norm. I could never wrap my head around F.

That said, I think 0 is more important in daily life, below or above freezing. How much is that in F again?

Re: Let's stop counting centuries

#336

Post by dantyti »

hombre_fatal wrote: post #327
jodrellblank wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's "more logical" about "the seventeenth century" compared to "the sixteen hundreds"?

I’d say more sensible. It’s always weird to me to use the number 17 to talk about years that start with 16. Makes more sense to just say the 1600s.

After their 16th birthday, the person is going through their 17th year.

Just like 11:45 can be told as "a quarter to 12"

Re: Let's stop counting centuries

#339

Post by ysofunny »

articlepan wrote: post #337

Solution for 2000-2010: "the first decade of the 2000s". I realize this is counting by decades/centuries again, but if we just do it for the first decade/century under a larger span it's easy to read.

nonetheless, typing out, and even saying "the first decade of the 2000s" takes too long

we need something shorter, like the double-ohs "00s"

Re: Let's stop counting centuries

#340

Post by [deleted] »

MarkLowenstein wrote: post #30

A lot of this runaround is happening because people get hung up on the fact that the "AD" era began as AD 1. But that year is not magic--it didn't even correlate with the year of Jesus's birth or death. So let's just start the AD era a year before, and call that year "AD 0". It can even overlap with BC 1. BC 1 is the same as AD 0. Fine, we can handle that, right? Then the 00s are [0, 100), 100s are [100, 200), etc. Z…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN