I think we're going to need cities on other planets before Earth's horrible calendar is fixed.
What are we going to need to switch from base 10 to base 12?
The leap year is February 29, not December 32 due to a Roman calendar quirk
51–60 of 61 posts
Re: The leap year is February 29, not December 32 due to a Roman calendar quirk
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Everyone" knows that leap years occur on year divisible by 4 ('first rule'). Actually, I think that's the only rule most people know. I think the "funny story" is actually the opposite: most people were treating 2000 as an ordinary every-4-year leap year, did not know about the 100 divisor, but were inadvertently saved by the 400 divisor. The Wikipedia link does document some cases of what you say (yes on the 2nd ru…
Agreed. The fact that y2k was even a concern in the first place suggests that vanishingly few systems were made with century-scale foresight.
Re: The leap year is February 29, not December 32 due to a Roman calendar quirk
#53Funny story about the year 2000 that does not involve Y2K: "Everyone" knows that leap years occur on year divisible by 4 ('first rule'). The second rule to them is that if a year is divisible by 100 (1800, 1900, …2000), then it is not a leap year. So a lot of folks did not have their systems/software have February 29 in the year 2000. But there is a third rule: if the year is divisible by 400 (like 1600… and 2000) it…
Related: https://www-users.york.ac.uk/~ss44/joke/decly.htm
LOL.
Re: The leap year is February 29, not December 32 due to a Roman calendar quirk
#54they could have saved everyone a whole lot of trouble by having 13 months with 28 days each, no cross calendar day stuff, no leap year stuff, would be truly the most perfect calendar ever made forever and would simplify working of everything on the planet by a mile
Re: The leap year is February 29, not December 32 due to a Roman calendar quirk
#55Very neat and perpetual :D
Re: The leap year is February 29, not December 32 due to a Roman calendar quirk
#56Summary: The historical start of the year is March 1st. That's also why some months have misleading Latin names that are off-by-2.
But I guess this idea is wrong ?
Re: The leap year is February 29, not December 32 due to a Roman calendar quirk
#57Re: The leap year is February 29, not December 32 due to a Roman calendar quirk
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought it was late March, around the time of the equinox? March was still the 1st month, but the year didn't start until towards the end of it. Notably, I thought the accounting/tax year started in late March, and didn't change to January because figuring out a 10-month accounting/tax year would be a nightmare. But also, accountants didn't skip the days that everyone else did when moving from the Julian to the Gre…
Falsehoods programmers believe about time https://gist.github.com/timvisee/fcda9bbdff88d45cc9061606b4b... And more complete list: https://github.com/kdeldycke/awesome-falsehood?tab=readme-ov...
It would be nice if they linked to examples of the exceptions.
Re: The leap year is February 29, not December 32 due to a Roman calendar quirk
#59Re: The leap year is February 29, not December 32 due to a Roman calendar quirk
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are we going to need to switch from base 10 to base 12?
I'm convinced the desire to switch from Earth-centric time to a solar-centric time will be the only thing capable of forcing our Julian calendar into obsolescence.