How the lore of New Year defeated the law of New Year • Hacker News Board

Re: How the lore of New Year defeated the law of New Year

#11

Post by stevetodd » Wed, Jan 01, 2025, 11:11 PM UTC

mmooss wrote: post #4

In Exodus 12:1-2, at the beginning of the section that decrees Passover, God also tells Moses and Aaron that the month of Passover is the first month of the year: The Lord said to Moses and Aaron in Egypt, "This month is to be for you the first month, the first month of your year. ..."

March coincides with the first month of the Jewish calendar.

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2164005/jewis...

It was also the first month of the Roman calendar until January and February were added.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martius_(month)

Re: How the lore of New Year defeated the law of New Year

#12

Post by roenxi » Wed, Jan 01, 2025, 11:12 PM UTC

bee_rider wrote: post #3

It is absurd and stupid to have the beginning year not also be the beginning of a month. (Same for weeks to months, things a dumb feature of our calendar). But December vs March is totally arbitrary, right?

Yes and no. As the article reminds us many of the months have numbers in the name. It is arbitrary to have December as the 10th month, but having the thing with 10 in the name as the tenth thing is somewhat more satisfying than having it as the 12th.

Re: How the lore of New Year defeated the law of New Year

#13

Post by postingawayonhn » Wed, Jan 01, 2025, 11:13 PM UTC

cjs_ac wrote: post #2

In the UK, the financial year ends on 5 April. This is Lady Day (25 March) plus the 11 days lost in the transition from the Julian calendar to the Gregorian calendar in 1752.

It seems awkward not ending on the last day of the month. In NEw Zealand it's close, the FY ends on 31 March.

Re: How the lore of New Year defeated the law of New Year

#14

Post by bawolff » Wed, Jan 01, 2025, 11:18 PM UTC

bee_rider wrote: post #3

It is absurd and stupid to have the beginning year not also be the beginning of a month. (Same for weeks to months, things a dumb feature of our calendar). But December vs March is totally arbitrary, right?

> But December vs March is totally arbitrary, right?

Well january is literally named after janus, the deity of beginnings and endings.

Re: How the lore of New Year defeated the law of New Year

#15

Post by bawolff » Wed, Jan 01, 2025, 11:23 PM UTC

ghjfrdghibt wrote: post #6

bee_rider wrote: post #3

It is absurd and stupid to have the beginning year not also be the beginning of a month. (Same for weeks to months, things a dumb feature of our calendar). But December vs March is totally arbitrary, right?

Personally I'd go with 13 months of 4 weeks each. The only issue I see would be if you were born on a Monday your birthday would always be on a Monday.

And leap years get more complicated.

Re: How the lore of New Year defeated the law of New Year

#16

Post by ghjfrdghibt » Thu, Jan 02, 2025, 12:01 AM UTC

bawolff wrote: post #15

ghjfrdghibt wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally I'd go with 13 months of 4 weeks each. The only issue I see would be if you were born on a Monday your birthday would always be on a Monday.

And leap years get more complicated.

It's just another day isn't it?

Re: How the lore of New Year defeated the law of New Year

#17

Post by nyc111 » Thu, Jan 02, 2025, 12:14 AM UTC

"And the problem was that people ignored what they were supposed to think, and carried on celebrating the new year on 1 January anyway, as they had done since time immemorial."

"Time immemorial" is an exaggeration, right, as many commenters here gave contrary examples.

Re: How the lore of New Year defeated the law of New Year

#18

Post by Dylan16807 » Thu, Jan 02, 2025, 12:26 AM UTC

adrian_b wrote: post #10

bee_rider wrote: post #3

It is absurd and stupid to have the beginning year not also be the beginning of a month. (Same for weeks to months, things a dumb feature of our calendar). But December vs March is totally arbitrary, right?

The only rational points for the beginning of a year are the solstices or the equinoxes. From the point of view of an inhabitant of the northern hemisphere, the choice remains between the Winter solstice, i.e. the moment when the Sun begins its journey on the sky back towards us, after reaching a maximum distance on the sky from us, and the Spring equinox, the moment when the Sun returns on the sky to the northern he…

> The only rational points for the beginning of a year are the solstices or the equinoxes.

It makes sense to use those as a basis.

And it makes sense to line up the months with those points.

But if the months don't line up, I think aligning with the nearest month is much better than not doing so. At least on the kind of solar calendar we use.

Re: How the lore of New Year defeated the law of New Year

#19

Post by zeroonetwothree » Thu, Jan 02, 2025, 12:34 AM UTC

ghjfrdghibt wrote: post #6

bee_rider wrote: post #3

It is absurd and stupid to have the beginning year not also be the beginning of a month. (Same for weeks to months, things a dumb feature of our calendar). But December vs March is totally arbitrary, right?

Personally I'd go with 13 months of 4 weeks each. The only issue I see would be if you were born on a Monday your birthday would always be on a Monday.

Do you have an extra bonus day at the end that doesn’t belong to any week?

Re: How the lore of New Year defeated the law of New Year

#20

Post by Dylan16807 » Thu, Jan 02, 2025, 12:34 AM UTC

dylan604 wrote: post #7

bee_rider wrote: post #3

It is absurd and stupid to have the beginning year not also be the beginning of a month. (Same for weeks to months, things a dumb feature of our calendar). But December vs March is totally arbitrary, right?

When you base the first of anything based on the phases of the moon, you'll more often not be aligned with the 1st of any month. Basing a calendar on the phases of the moon doesn't line up with the full orbit around the sun, so something has to change somewhere. ~365.25 / ~29.53 doesn't work out to a whole number, so whatchagunnado? Leap seconds and leap years! Perfect!

I'm confused. The topic is the Julian and Gregorian calendars and things very close to them, right? Nothing in those calendars is based on the phase of the moon.

Months are obviously inspired by the moon, but there's no attempt in this system to make them go anywhere near lining up. And that inspiration wouldn't block any attempt to align week starts with month starts.