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

421–430 of 449 posts

Re: Let's stop counting centuries

#421

Post by Dalewyn »

mixmastamyk wrote: post #416
im3w1l wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is the most boring knuckledragging subthread I’ve ever read here. Arguing we shouldn’t bother knowing anything but what’s underneath our nose, without qualifications. Not even a theoretically useful philosophy, such as solipsism is being espoused here. All the while masquerading as intelligent conversation. It’s only interesting until you follow it to its conclusion. Anti-intellectualism in a nutshell, and you s…

Is it nice to learn about the American or French Revolutions? Absolutely. But time is a limited resource and must be rationed according to each individual's needs.

Most people are far too busy living lives to have time to spare spelunking into tomes; they usually don't even understand what democracy actually is either, but they get by fine in life just the same.

The reality is no man can learn all there is to know, it's physically impossible and lines in the sand must be drawn. Given that, which side of the line a certain historical factoid lies will vary; some will consider the American Revolution important and some will not, and some will be indoctrinated by their society, all are fine.

Also, I'm going to cite the HN Guidelines here for your reference going forwards:

>Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.

>Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

Re: Let's stop counting centuries

#422

Post by mixmastamyk »

Tainnor wrote: post #396
mixmastamyk wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

do you remember the decade of the Treaty of Westfalia? Because if you live in central Europe, that's at least as important as the American Revolution.

I slightly misspoke above. The important part in my opinion is the milestone of democracy. That it happened nearby wars is somewhat incidental and common.

What I mostly remember about the HRE is that it wasn’t Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire. :D. My first guess of mid 1600s is not too far off.

(Westphalian sovereignty is interesting… reading about it now.)

Those governments have been replaced multiple times over the centuries however, so achievements at the time were not stable.

Re: Let's stop counting centuries

#423

Post by OJFord »

bonzini wrote: post #395
OJFord wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only American Christians say 'year of our lord' after the date, if that's what that means to you and is how you want to think of it that's fine, but be aware nobody else is doing that, even though they're working in AD/BC.

"Year of the lord" (not "our" lord, please double check what I wrote) is the literal translation of Anno Domini and it's the reason why years are counted from one instead of zero. I quoted the expression, wrote "lord" in lowercase and added "purported" to make it clear that the religious reference was only for historical reasons, I don't know what else I could have done. If I wanted to imbue some religious meaning I…

That is what they say though.

I am Christian in a very literal sense, would use AD dating etc. and have no problem with it whatsoever, I just don't feel the need to suffix (or sometimes prefix) it with 'year of our lord' the way some Americans do; I find it quite jarring.

It's like feeling the need to say 'day of rest' or 'sabbath' every time you say a particular day of the week, or some other (possibly areligious) descriptor of something whenever it's mentioned.

Re: Let's stop counting centuries

#424

Post by bonzini »

OJFord wrote: post #423
bonzini wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Year of the lord" (not "our" lord, please double check what I wrote) is the literal translation of Anno Domini and it's the reason why years are counted from one instead of zero. I quoted the expression, wrote "lord" in lowercase and added "purported" to make it clear that the religious reference was only for historical reasons, I don't know what else I could have done. If I wanted to imbue some religious meaning I…

That is what they say though. I am Christian in a very literal sense, would use AD dating etc. and have no problem with it whatsoever, I just don't feel the need to suffix (or sometimes prefix) it with 'year of our lord' the way some Americans do; I find it quite jarring. It's like feeling the need to say 'day of rest' or 'sabbath' every time you say a particular day of the week, or some other (possibly areligious) d…

I am replying specifically to "if that's what that means to you" which felt a bit ad hominem sinceI didn't even use the words "year of our lord".

Re: Let's stop counting centuries

#425

Post by kleiba »

OmarShehata wrote: post #408
kleiba wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe not easy to solve, but not of enough importance/impact that would justify spending an extended amount of time changing the current practice. My original post got downvoted, but I stand by it because empirically, it seems to be clear: the current practice may not be perfect but has obviously stood the test of time. So let's move on, there's more important things to worry about.

"the current practice may not be perfect but has obviously stood the test of time" has it stood the test of time? or is just an arbitrary choice that no one has bothered to change? I'm sorry, it just seems like we're looking at spilled milk in the middle of the room saying, "well, it's been here since I walked into the room, obviously it's supposed to be here?" no we can just clean it up, no one's going to stop you i…

I am personally going to start using this, and I am going to get immediate benefits from this, and so are my readers. That's it, that's all it takes.

More power to you!

My point, however, is that why most people would be bothered by spilled milk in the middle of a room and clean it up, the fact that we've stuck with "counting centuries" for a long time implies that it really isn't a big deal to most people.

If it's important enough for you to adapt your speech patterns, there's nothing wrong with it. I wouldn't expect most people to follow suit, though, because no-one cares.

Re: Let's stop counting centuries

#426

Post by dantyti »

rootusrootus wrote: post #403
dantyti wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After their 16th birthday, the person is going through their 17th year. Just like 11:45 can be told as "a quarter to 12"

> After their 16th birthday, the person is going through their 17th year. While that is true, does it not illustrate exactly the problem? Nobody ever says someone is in their 17th year when they are 16. That would be very confusing.

People in my country sometimes do. As well as uni students, who always say which year they’re in, not how many years they’d finished.

Re: Let's stop counting centuries

#427

Post by satvikpendem »

OJFord wrote: post #423
bonzini wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Year of the lord" (not "our" lord, please double check what I wrote) is the literal translation of Anno Domini and it's the reason why years are counted from one instead of zero. I quoted the expression, wrote "lord" in lowercase and added "purported" to make it clear that the religious reference was only for historical reasons, I don't know what else I could have done. If I wanted to imbue some religious meaning I…

That is what they say though. I am Christian in a very literal sense, would use AD dating etc. and have no problem with it whatsoever, I just don't feel the need to suffix (or sometimes prefix) it with 'year of our lord' the way some Americans do; I find it quite jarring. It's like feeling the need to say 'day of rest' or 'sabbath' every time you say a particular day of the week, or some other (possibly areligious) d…

You're on a tangent, who cares what it's called but the fact is that years started at 1, not 0, therefore centuries also start on the first year, not the zeroth year.

Re: Let's stop counting centuries

#428

Post by OJFord »

bonzini wrote: post #424
OJFord wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is what they say though. I am Christian in a very literal sense, would use AD dating etc. and have no problem with it whatsoever, I just don't feel the need to suffix (or sometimes prefix) it with 'year of our lord' the way some Americans do; I find it quite jarring. It's like feeling the need to say 'day of rest' or 'sabbath' every time you say a particular day of the week, or some other (possibly areligious) d…

I am replying specifically to "if that's what that means to you" which felt a bit ad hominem since I didn't even use the words "year of our lord".

I was referring to 1701 to 1800 inclusive, which is not the standard way people refer to centuries and is not what other people will mean or will think you mean, in general.

Re: Let's stop counting centuries

#429

Post by IshKebab »

mixmastamyk wrote: post #420
IshKebab wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolute rubbish. There are plenty of facts that it would be quite surprising for an educated person not to know. The date of the American Revolution is not one of those facts, except for Americans. Just like it would be unusual for an educated person not to know when the Battle of Hastings was... unless they aren't British. And that's about as close a country to America as you can get. Do you think the educated in S…

It’s not entirely surprising your country would prefer to forget that war. Disappointing perhaps but not surprising. In my opinion, a battle is generally not important compared to a milestone of democracy. I learned about the Magna Carta in 1215 and saw a copy once and appreciate that knowledge. But sure, keep arguing for ignorance and dismissing education if you’d like—we’ll enjoy the show here in posterity.

> It’s not entirely surprising your country would prefer to forget that war. Disappointing perhaps but not surprising.

Maybe not, but that's hardly the only thing from history that we didn't learn about. I think you're massively underestimating how much history there is. Most of the world has millennia of history. It's not like America where you can cover the entire history of the country.

Also history is an optional lesson past age ~14. You can choose to do Geography instead. But I'm not going to call you uneducated for not knowing what a medial moraine is.

Re: Let's stop counting centuries

#430

Post by bonzini »

OJFord wrote: post #428
bonzini wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am replying specifically to "if that's what that means to you" which felt a bit ad hominem since I didn't even use the words "year of our lord".

I was referring to 1701 to 1800 inclusive, which is not the standard way people refer to centuries and is not what other people will mean or will think you mean, in general.

Ok, then you're just wrong, just like you were wrong about my nationality and faith, and it's pointless to argue with you.
Post reply on HN