[Aardwolf]

> 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.

I especially don't understand why mathematicians use 1-based indexing (for matrix rows/columns etc...). Like programmers, they should see the advantages of starting at 0 (e.g. the coordinates of subdividing into block matrices are simpler if starting at 0). Mathematicians do start at 0 for the origin of plots, after all.

[OscarCunningham]

> 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.

That's funny, but there's actually an elegant way to do it called Bijective numeration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bijective_numeration). We're currently living in the 1A22th year.