|
|
|
|
|
|
by Aardwolf
1388 days ago
|
|
|
> human-focused (1) approach. TBH humans would have been better of if we were 0-based, it's just a convention. And we have the confusing language where "20th century" means 1900's. If we wanted to bring the 1-indexing we use in language to the fullest extent here to fix that particular issue, time counting would have to start at 1111. Except that won't work once reaching 5-digit years. If we would start with "zeroeth" instead of "1st", then this would have solved itself and 20th century would mean 20xx's. |
|
|
to this day I can't seem to be able to explain to people that Jan 1 2000 was NOT the start of the new millennium, but rather Jan 1 2001
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2000-dec-26-mn-4810-...