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

  • TWeaK@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    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?

      • TWeaK@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        Ohh, nice one!

        The first convention is common in English-speaking countries, but the latter is favoured in, for example, Sweden (tvåtusentalet, 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.

    • xigoi@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      8 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.

    • nudny ekscentryk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      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)

      • exocrinous@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        You would rather mess up the timing of every decade, forever, with an off by one error, than have one singular solitary nine year decade.

        • nudny ekscentryk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          In what way is considering a decade to be a period from ___1 to ___0 an off by one error, lol

      • eatham 🇭🇲@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        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)

        • nudny ekscentryk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          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.

            • nudny ekscentryk
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

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

              • eatham 🇭🇲@aussie.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                8 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