So, what's the current status of everything?

gpsqueeek

Active Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2016
Messages
88
Age
38
Good news for the Pyra in the current decade : it only starts in a bit more than one year ; just like the 21st century started on the 1st January 2001 (not 2000). Yey !
I mean, this is true if we use the strict usage as defined in the century article in Wikipedia, which is how I use it too... would you too ?
 

Dr. λ the Typer of Terms

Inferrer of Types and β-Reducer of β-Redexes
Joined
Sep 13, 2016
Messages
216
I mean... I grew up in a cult that spreads fear in their members by constantly preaching that Armageddon is imminent - and apparently it has been for over 150 years - but right now it's more imminent than ever! The Pyra got nothing on this (except maybe we might actually get ours before the end of the century).
To be fair, if humanity exists for 6000 years then 150 years could truthfully be called a short time at the end of humanity. It's comparable to having a 30 minute delay on a 14 hour trip to Thailand or having a 30 minute delay on a 10 minute walk to the store; the first delay is short and the second delay is long despite them having the same absolute duration.
Post automatically merged:

Good news for the Pyra in the current decade : it only starts in a bit more than one year ; just like the 21st century started on the 1st January 2001 (not 2000). Yey !
I mean, this is true if we use the strict usage as defined in the century article in Wikipedia, which is how I use it too... would you too ?
I guess this makes sense because the year 0 was skipped.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rSl

mati

Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2014
Messages
39
Location
Trier (Germany)
It's more handy to say "the 80s" (which always is 1980 to 1989) than saying "the 9th decade of the 20th century" (which is 1981 to 1990)... so at least for decades I continue to start counting at 0.
 

Dr. λ the Typer of Terms

Inferrer of Types and β-Reducer of β-Redexes
Joined
Sep 13, 2016
Messages
216
I really do not care specifically about decades anyway. Our current calendar system is botched with:
- Silly months that have variable length and are apparently 2 months behind (SEPTember is 9th, OCTOber is 10th, NOVember is 11th, and DECember is 12th)
- A year count that was apparently made by someone who thinks that 0 is not a number and that 1-1 is -1
- Some weeks that are not even properly contained in our months and instead overlap with 2 different months.

To top that off, base 10 is generally inferior to base 12.

I'm not going to mourn the Pyra's release not fitting arbitrary dates that are special only to a combination of our bad calendar with our bad number system. The only mourning that's based on our calendar and number system that I am willing to do is the mourning of the fact that I am forced to use them.
 

Bosbeetle

Terminally lost
Joined
Sep 7, 2008
Messages
3,732
Age
38
Location
The Netherlands
Website
Visit site
It's more handy to say "the 80s" (which always is 1980 to 1989) than saying "the 9th decade of the 20th century" (which is 1981 to 1990)... so at least for decades I continue to start counting at 0.
I think more in musical decades.. the 60s were '65~'68 the 70s were '69~'76 the punks were '77 the post-punks were '79 the new wave 80s were '79-88 the hard rock 80 were '83-90 the 90s were '88 - '93 the rest doesnt really matter :p

Oh yeah somewhere in there is disco and ABBA probably '78 and '74
 

levi

Still fresh, damnit!
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
11,850
Location
Somewhere off the coast of the EU
- Silly months that have variable length and are apparently 2 months behind (SEPTember is 9th, OCTOber is 10th, NOVember is 11th, and DECember is 12th)
Surprisingly (to me at least) the reason that the end months are out by two is not the addition of the two obviously roman regal months (July - Julius and August - Augustus), but the addition of January and February. The original slightly legendary 10 month year started at March, and month five was called Quintills and six, Sextills. Those two months were simply renamed by Julius Caesar after he collapsed the roman republic. The two offending months were actually added by the more democratic roman republic before him.
 

Grench

Forum Addict!
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
6,422
The reason to stick with the existing method of timekeeping: Everyone uses it.

"Superior" systems can definitely be contrived, but conversion and adoption would require either an all powerful state actor/dictator forcing it upon everyone or a population so astute, educated and collaborative that they all simply accept it as, "better".

If simplicity reigned supreme, we would all be keeping track of days the same way most computers do. Pick a more or less arbitrary day and call it day 0. Count forward for all days subsequent to that and backwards into negative numbers for all days prior. Seasons and the positions of the stars be damned. We actually all already use this type of system, but apply a classification and translation system over the top of it based on history and convenience. Most of the population is shielded from the reality of time.
 

levi

Still fresh, damnit!
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
11,850
Location
Somewhere off the coast of the EU
If simplicity reigned supreme, we would all be keeping track of days the same way most computers do. Pick a more or less arbitrary day and call it day 0.
I'd argue that that's only simple for computers, and even then conversion into other fields need to contain all kinds of caveats and special cases to cope with the conversion, because of leap years and correction seconds and stuff. I think being able to see how many years it is since something is important too, so I'd argue that as long as people can cope with three digit numbers almost as well as they can do two digit ones, it'd be simpler to make new years day day 0 for the year, and then count up to either 365 or 366 before declaring a new year, although there perhaps are benefits in getting the leap day out of the way early in the year is the middle of a northern hemisphere winter by adding it to february, so that the year always ends on Dec 31rd, no matter if that was actually 365 or 366 days since Jan 1st.
 

Dr. λ the Typer of Terms

Inferrer of Types and β-Reducer of β-Redexes
Joined
Sep 13, 2016
Messages
216
Surprisingly (to me at least) the reason that the end months are out by two is not the addition of the two obviously roman regal months (July - Julius and August - Augustus), but the addition of January and February. The original slightly legendary 10 month year started at March, and month five was called Quintills and six, Sextills. Those two months were simply renamed by Julius Caesar after he collapsed the roman republic. The two offending months were actually added by the more democratic roman republic before him.
I think that I once heard that the year was considered to start with spring because that is when life starts to grow but was then changed to be more sun-centric and thus start at a time shortly after the winter equinox. I have no idea if that's true though.

reason to stick with the existing method of timekeeping: Everyone uses it.
I agree. In fact, that's the only reason that I can think off.

"Superior" systems can definitely be contrived, but conversion and adoption would require either an all powerful state actor/dictator forcing it upon everyone or a population so astute, educated and collaborative that they all simply accept it as, "better".
Supposedly our current calendar has been forced onto the people by a dictator. So that did not went well. Maybe it would have been better if there had been no dictator at all. It seems like the lack of a dictator does wonders for the quality of software.

If simplicity reigned supreme, we would all be keeping track of days the same way most computers do. Pick a more or less arbitrary day and call it day 0. Count forward for all days subsequent to that and backwards into negative numbers for all days prior. Seasons and the positions of the stars be damned. We actually all already use this type of system, but apply a classification and translation system over the top of it based on history and convenience. Most of the population is shielded from the reality of time.
It's not about simplicity but about ease of use. Working with big numbers is not easy. So we need multiple units which are multiplications of each other. Also, the day is a very important cycle to us so it should have special significance so that the system becomes easier to work with. E.g. it's not easy to have to recalculate every day at what time you must go to work. I also think that having it be year centric is useful since the year is also an important cycle.

Hence why I did not criticise things like leap years. They're weird but are necessary to make the calendar year and day based. However, not having years, months, and weeks form a proper hierarchy and having months be a random lenght is just cumbersome with no advantages. Not having the year 0 is silly too because it's an extra exception to our system and thus an extra chance for people to make mistakes with it.
 

Grench

Forum Addict!
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
6,422
Hence why I did not criticise things like leap years. They're weird but are necessary to make the calendar year and day based. However, not having years, months, and weeks form a proper hierarchy and having months be a random lenght is just cumbersome with no advantages. Not having the year 0 is silly too because it's an extra exception to our system and thus an extra chance for people to make mistakes with it.
If we're going to even consider changing the calendar, though, we should step back and reconsider even the most fundamental aspects of timekeeping.

For example, how about we decouple the calendar (social timekeeping) from the orbital period (celestial timekeeping)?

We could have twelve months of thirty days each. The 'new year' and people's birthdays would then migrate through the Zodiac by 5.25 days per year. Over the course of a normal lifetime a person would then have their birthday in every season. They might come 'round the circle thrice.

While we're at it, though I do like base 12, the 24 hours to a day thing isn't as convenient as it could be. Lets change that to 60 hours in the day with 60 minutes to the hour and 60 seconds to the minute. Instead of there being 86400 seconds in a day we would have 216000 and each new second would be 0.4 old seconds in duration. What is now an eight hour work day would become a twenty hour work-day of equal actual length.
 

Dr. λ the Typer of Terms

Inferrer of Types and β-Reducer of β-Redexes
Joined
Sep 13, 2016
Messages
216
For example, how about we decouple the calendar (social timekeeping) from the orbital period (celestial timekeeping)?
Personally I think that the year cycle may be too important but I'm not really sure about that. I guess some people like farmers prefer to have the year cycle reflected in their calendar. At least the day cycle needs to be in the calendar, of that I'm pretty sure. Everyone uses that.

We could have twelve months of thirty days each. The 'new year' and people's birthdays would then migrate through the Zodiac by 5.25 days per year. Over the course of a normal lifetime a person would then have their birthday in every season. They might come 'round the circle thrice.
This calendar seems nice too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Fixed_Calendar
It keeps the year cycle which is nice.

While we're at it, though I do like base 12, the 24 hours to a day thing isn't as convenient as it could be. Lets change that to 60 hours in the day with 60 minutes to the hour and 60 seconds to the minute. Instead of there being 86400 seconds in a day we would have 216000 and each new second would be 0.4 old seconds in duration. What is now an eight hour work day would become a twenty hour work-day of equal actual length.
I like the consistency, but I think that the jumps should be the same as the used base. In fact I think that a day should be our standard unit of time and all other times should be derived using the metric system extended with base 12 prefixes. That could be comparable to the binary prefixes where they just put "bi" instead of the last 2 letters; e.g. "kilo" becomes "kibi". For base 12 this could be done but with "do" instead of "bi". So 1/12 of a day would be a dedoday ("deci" become "dedo"). and 1/12^3 of a day would be a "midoday". Though either "deca" or "deci" needs to be replaced for this system because they become ambiguous when they're base 12 versions are used. The metric system is not without flaws either.
 

ible

professional vim user
Joined
Mar 24, 2014
Messages
2,255
Location
Seattle, WA
This calendar seems nice too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Fixed_Calendar
It keeps the year cycle which is nice.
ooh, i like that one.

I like the consistency, but I think that the jumps should be the same as the used base. In fact I think that a day should be our standard unit of time and all other times should be derived using the metric system extended with base 12 prefixes. That could be comparable to the binary prefixes where they just put "bi" instead of the last 2 letters; e.g. "kilo" becomes "kibi". For base 12 this could be done but with "do" instead of "bi". So 1/12 of a day would be a dedoday ("deci" become "dedo"). and 1/12^3 of a day would be a "midoday". Though either "deca" or "deci" needs to be replaced for this system because they become ambiguous when they're base 12 versions are used. The metric system is not without flaws either.
i also originally liked 12 for division reasons (it's an antiprime), but 6 will also do the job and there is less of a multiplication table that you'd need to remember. seximal is sexy, after all.

a day divided into sixths repeatedly:

24 hours -> 4 hours -> 40 minutes -> 6m 40s -> 66.66 s -> 11.11 s -> 1.85 s

some of those are fairly close to common durations (1 minute, 1 second). not that that's a good reason to use it...
 

bzar

A Commando
Joined
Sep 22, 2008
Messages
4,456
Location
Finland
Website
Visit site
This one does many things sanely: http://terrancalendar.com/

For example, how about we decouple the calendar (social timekeeping) from the orbital period (celestial timekeeping)?
We'd also need absolute earth-relative timekeeping, as neither of those two have constant cycles. Days are of different lengths as are years. The ground truth there would have to be determined as temporal distance from a determined point in time as measured by one or more atomic clocks in number of elapsed periods at a specific point of observation. We already kinda do this with GPS and the like.
 

matzesu

Hardcore Member
Staff member
Joined
Oct 24, 2008
Messages
9,446
Age
35
Location
Germany,, Saarland, at home
End of January, to mid of February wasnt meant to put pressure on EvilDragon, its just my hope, and if its takes until March or April, also nothing i have big issues whit..

For a Work PC on my Desctop Settup, i still have the GPD Win, which works pretty good as its also just a tiny Windows PC in a Handheld Case, but it would be cool to just use the same Handheld for Desctop as i also have in my Pockets..

Also the Win got these Issues that its Windows, so you have to wait somethimes if Microsoft decides to give it an Update..

On Pandora, i had to start the Update manually, so if i ditnt had the Time to update, i ditnt updatet the Pandora,
on GPD Win, its automatic, and if i you want to play some tetris, you can have unluck and its update...
 
  • Like
Reactions: rSl

Djoga'Ro

moonstruck
Joined
Apr 3, 2016
Messages
1,147
i also originally liked 12 for division reasons (it's an antiprime)
What about five, seven, eleven, thirteen, seventeen, nineteen, ...? I'd say, the base to use should be a power of two.
 

spud42

Very Active Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Messages
645
Age
58
Location
Brisbane,Australia.
"Superior" systems can definitely be contrived, but conversion and adoption would require either an all powerful state actor/dictator forcing it upon everyone or a population so astute, educated and collaborative that they all simply accept it as, "better".
this! proof of how difficult change can be...
" Congress passed the Metric Conversion Act of 1975 "to coordinate and plan the increasing use of the metric system in the United States". Voluntary conversion was initiated, and the United States Metric Board (USMB) was established for planning, coordination, and public education. The public education component led to public awareness of the metric system, but the public response included resistance, apathy, and sometimes ridicule. "
you can tell when the forum is bored..... lol
 
Top