this post was submitted on 17 Apr 2024
97 points (92.9% liked)

Asklemmy

43898 readers
1472 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Please explain my confused me like I'm 5 (0r 4 or 6).

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 7 points 7 months ago (4 children)

That makes sense, but trying to square that off with the idea that the year 2000 is the start of the 21st century is hurting my head.

If year 1 is the 1st year, then surely the first year of the 21st century should be 2001?

[–] savedbythezsh@sh.itjust.works 10 points 7 months ago (2 children)
[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 2 points 7 months ago

Ohh, nice one!

The first convention is common in English-speaking countries, but the latter is favoured in, for example, Sweden (tvΓ₯tusentalet, which translates literally as the two thousands period).

I'm not sure that's entirely true, most people in English speaking countries (and the world over) celebrated the millenium at the beginning of the year 2000.

[–] jeremyparker@programming.dev 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

The enumeration on the losing side of that debate is probably correct. But as a person who was in my early 20s in 2000, I'd like to offer what I will characterize as The Historical Context and Definitive Conclusion to This Debate.

No one actually gave a shit about that debate. Sure, it came up, but it did not alter anyone's party planning. We weren't actually celebrating the changing of the millennium, we were celebrating because we had a permission slip to do so. Any attempt to withdraw that permission was unwelcome.

In Paris on December 31st, 1999, at around 11pm local time, someone threw themselves in front of a metro. The trains were free that night (because it was the 100 year anniversary of their opening iirc), but because of that suicide, at least one of the train lines was substantially delayed. The streets from the center of the city to the north side were crowded well toward dawn as everyone chose to walk home instead of wait indefinitely in a stinky train station.

That person, who chose to end their life on the tracks that night, holds the core truth of the debate within his death: it's a ridiculous debate and those who would fight for it should just stay the hell home and let the rest of us drink a lot and dance.

[–] xigoi@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 7 months ago

If year 1 is the 1st year, then surely the first year of the 21st century should be 2001?

It is. The system is confusing.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

It should all be zero indexed. Positional number systems like we write with are (600=0600) but our language isn't, which causes this problem. Basically, if 2004 is the 20th century the gospels took place in the 0th.

[–] nudnyekscentryk@szmer.info 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

the idea that the year 2000 is the start of the 21st century is hurting my head.

That may be because it is not. The first century was years 1 to 100. The second was 101 to 200. The 21st is therefore 2001 to 2100.

What you're probably referring to is the "cultural century" which was considered to have started when the lead digit changed from 1 to 2. The same thing happened quite recently when some people argued 2020 was the start of a new decade (again, it wasn't)

[–] eatham@aussie.zone 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I hate it when people say it wasnt the start of a new decade, it's a shit argument, why does it matter what the first year was, 2014 - 2024 is also a decade, and 2pm aest September 22nd 2024 will also be the start of a new decade. There is nothing wrong with saying 2020 was the start of a new decade. (again, it was)

[–] nudnyekscentryk@szmer.info 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

There are decades and there are decades. Just like there are weeks (period between Monday and Sunday inclusive) and weeks (any seven consecutive days).

When you say "I'll do this next week", then you mean the next period between Monday and Sunday. When you say you'll do it in a week, it means you'll do it after exactly 7 days from now, regardless of what day is it today. Same for decades.

[–] eatham@aussie.zone 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You said start of a new decade, not the new decade in the original comment, they are very different

[–] nudnyekscentryk@szmer.info -1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

???? You know very well what I meant, be more forgiving to second-language speakers

[–] eatham@aussie.zone 1 points 7 months ago
  1. when I originally replied to you, I very obviously did not know that you meant that

  2. didn't know you weren't a native speaker either