Public Information Announcement

tolosenc

The decade is not over. It is still the 201st decade. Stop irritating me by saying "I can't believe it's a new decade" (that actually annoys me for several reasons) and return, more educated to your daily tasks.

Now, here's the science bit...

There was no year zero. Therefore, the first decade was the years 1 through 10, ending on December 31st 10 AD. Therefore, all decades, centuries and millenia end on December 31st when the year ends in a zero. Easy, huh?

A decade is any arbitrary 10 year period. So, technichally, one finishes every second. But the big one is the calendrical decade, which I described up there *points up*...

Stop going on aesthetics, it's what's on the inside that counts!

BluesBerry

My head hurts after that

tolosenc

BluesBerry wrote: »

My head hurts after that

Thank you.

CrazyRabbit

Toulousain wrote: »

The decade is not over. It is still the 201st decade. Stop irritating me by saying "I can't believe it's a new decade" (that actually annoys me for several reasons) and return, more educated to your daily tasks.

Now, here's the science bit...

There was no year zero. Therefore, the first decade was the years 1 through 10, ending on December 31st 10 AD. Therefore, all decades, centuries and millenia end on December 31st when the year ends in a zero. Easy, huh?

A decade is any arbitrary 10 year period. So, technichally, one finishes every second. But the big one is the calendrical decade, which I described up there *points up*...

Stop going on aesthetics, it's what's on the inside that counts!

How do you know there was no year 0?

When we are born, we start off age 0. I suspect the same is for the calendar. It started on day 1 of the year 0. After 365 days past, it became year 1.

Sulmac

I wouldn't get so hung up on it, considering the world is really over 4.5 billion years old...

GLaDOS

70-79 was the 70's, 80-89 was the 80's so, 2000-2009 was a decade for me (I refuse to say that stupid name we've given to it)

galwayrush

My wine tastes good, i'm going back to it.;)

SV

Toulousain wrote: »

A decade is any arbitrary 10 year period.

Yeahhh and this one started on January 1st 2000
Figure it out..

Pushtrak

ScienceNerd wrote: »

70-79 was the 70's, 80-89 was the 80's so, 2000-2009 was a decade for me (I refuse to say that stupid name we've given to it)

To me, its 80s, 90s, them years, 10s.

robby^5

If you really want to be scientific about things then it's the year 4,540,000,010 give or take several hundred thousand years.

You're wrong though. A decade is a period of any ten years yeah but it also used to describe the interval of the tens digit of the calendar year which works because with the exception of the 0's, every decade has 10 years.

For example, the 90's were 1990, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99. That's 10 years. You're alone on this one, unless you can convince the entire western world to start thinking of 1990 as being in the 80's... good luck with that.

But then again if you wish to get worked up about an arbitray number based on the reckoned birth of some Palestinian dude name Jesus, be my guest.

speedboatchase

OP, nobody cares. You were one of those guys sitting in a corner disapprovingly on 31th december 1999 right?

bluto63

speedboatchase wrote: »

OP, nobody cares. You were one of those guys sitting in a corner disapprovingly on 31th december 1999 right?

You should have seen him on 31st December 2000 though!

tolosenc

robby^5 wrote: »

You're wrong though. A decade is a period of any ten years and it also used to describe the interval of the tens digit of the calendar year which works because with the exception of the 0's, every decade has 10 years.

All decades are ten years.
The first decade had 9 years.
One sentence.
lol

Meh, close this thread, I already got thanks...

jhegarty

bluto63 wrote: »

You should have seen him on 31st December 2000 though!

Must have been a very lonely millennium party.

tolosenc

jhegarty wrote: »

Must have been a very lonely millennium party.

Just me and a few others who understand maths.

jhegarty

Toulousain wrote: »

All decades are ten years.
The first decade had 9 years.
One sentence.
lol

Meh, close this thread, I already got thanks...

A decade is any 10 years. Doesn't matter when is starts as long as it ends 10 years later.

So the year 1 to 11 was a decade , as was 1964 to 1974.

Jesus Wept

Toulousain wrote: »

Just me and a few others who understand maths.

Kicking party alright.

tolosenc

jhegarty wrote: »

So the year 1 to 11 was a decade , as was 1964 to 1974.

Well, 1-10 and 1964-1973, technically. But you get the idea.

A calendrical decade is one which starts on a XXX1 and finishes on a XXX0.

stripysocks85

Toulousain wrote: »

Therefore, all decades, centuries and millenia end on December 31st when the year ends in a zero. Easy, huh?

Yes, easy. They end BEFORE the year that ends with a zero. As someone said already, the 90's would be deemed to be from 1990 - 1999, and then 2000 was the start of a new millennium. If we go by your standards, perhaps we shouldn't have celebrated the new millennium until Dec 31st 2000?

Eh, no.

tolosenc

The-Rigger wrote: »

Kicking party alright.

Gotta stop putting those up on facebook...

stripysocks85

And yes, a decade is any 10 years, but people are just being pedantic by arguing over something like this.

dolliemix

galwayrush wrote: »

My wine tastes good, i'm going back to it.;)

I think I need some wine after reading the original post

lugha

Toulousain wrote: »

There was no year zero.

Well there should have been. Some official done a blooper about 2k years ago.
Look its very simply. If you are measuring discrete thingys like people, posts or pointy hats you being at 1. One pointy hat, two pointy hats and so forth. But when you are measuring continuous quantities like weight or length or time you begin at 0. You wouldn't measure your height with a tape starting at 1cm , nor would measure a runner's lap time with a stop watch starting at 1 sec. So why would you think a calendar would begin at year 1?

Anyway, we had all this out 10 years ago and your subversive thinking didn't convince anyone then. So what makes you think we are ready for change now? :pac:

Daemos

Toulousain wrote: »

Meh, close this thread, I already got thanks...

Thanked by one person, ridiculed by everyone else.

Was it really worth it?

Diabhal Beag

Of all the things to feel strongly about it's the difference between a year. Ony a few people will care that it's not technically the end of the 201st decade.

robby^5

Toulousain wrote: »

All decades are ten years.
The first decade had 9 years.
One sentence.
lol

Meh, close this thread, I already got thanks...

Exception to the rule but if you seriously wish to follow ordinal references then I wish you a pedantic yet happy new year.

phasers

There was a year zero

stripysocks85

When a baby is born, it isn't just 0. It doesn't reach 1 until 365 days has passed, but it is still 1 year old. Therefore, if time began, then it can't just begin at nothing. After the first 365 years, surely that is one year that has passed? And so it continues......

Pushtrak

stripysocks85 wrote: »

When a baby is born, it isn't just 0.

No, its however many days/weeks/months up until a year.

jhegarty

phasers wrote: »

There was a year zero

No there wasn't , they didn't have a concept of Zero (as we see it).

Mint Sauce

SV wrote: »

Yeahhh and this one started on January 1st 2000
Figure it out..

thats when the century started, and the noughties started, the decade started in 2001

ShooterSF

OP I feel your pain but just know people just don't care. If it's the worst problem in the world I'd be delighted...

phasers

jhegarty wrote: »

No there wasn't , they didn't have a concept of Zero (as we see it).

But to get to 1, don't you have to start at zero?

As in the first day was day 1/365, and day 365/365 would be the beginning of year one.

GLaDOS

Usually I actually would be annoyed by this sort of thing, but 2000-2009 makes more sense. Bear in mind this is based around caculations that we now know are inaccurate anyway, surely it is better to adapt to the logical way, as opposed to sticking with the awkward one, for the sake of being "accurate" when it doesn't matter at all?

tolosenc

DaPoolRulz wrote: »

Thanked by one person, ridiculed by everyone else.

Was it really worth it?

Being correct is often tough...

jhegarty

phasers wrote: »

But to get to 1, don't you have to start at zero?

As in the first day was day 1/365, and day 365/365 would be the beginning of year one.

Nope.

The calendar would have gone like this.

30/12/1BC
31/12/1BC
1/1/1AD
2/1/1AD

There was no Roman numerals for Zero.

friendface

Tbh, it's better to stick to what is generally accepted (80's = 1980-1989 etc..) The whole calender is based on the assumption that Christ was incarnated on 0AD. Since the occurrence of such an event is*ahem* debatable in any case, ;)we may as well stick to the current system and stop arguing over a missing year in a decade 2000 years ago. It's just an instrument to measure time which is globally accepted. Why complicate things?

Mark200

Toulousain wrote: »

Being correct is often tough...

It IS a new decade, maybe not the 201st decade... but as you said yourself "A decade is any arbitrary 10 year period."... and quite obviously people are now referring to the 10 years from ***0 - ***9 as 'the' decade to measure.

You must have very little to worry about though if you do actually get annoyed when people say it's a new decade. It's not that everyone goes around with a strong belief that there was a year 0, it's just that we couldn't care less.

whatdoicare

So, by your logic any baby born is aged 1 year straight away? I don't think many people are going to follow you on this one.

bnt

jhegarty wrote: »

No there wasn't , they didn't have a concept of Zero (as we see it).

That's true, but you know what? They were wrong. The "invention" of Zero filled a major hole in the understanding of mathematics and made it possible to do calculations that made no sense before. So, I suppose the question is a choice between History and Science.

PS: when you are born, your age is indeed Zero.

Capt'n Midnight

bnt wrote: »

PS: when you are born, your age is indeed Zero.

To calculate your Chinese lunar age is not so complicated and confusing as some people think. In Chinese lunar age, you were 1-year-old when you were born, and add one more year after each Chinese New Year no matter what's your birth date. If you born on Chinese New Year Eve before midnight, you are 2-year-old on next morning!

whatdoicare

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

To calculate your Chinese lunar age is not so complicated and confusing as some people think. In Chinese lunar age, you were 1-year-old when you were born, and add one more year after each Chinese New Year no matter what's your birth date. If you born on Chinese New Year Eve before midnight, you are 2-year-old on next morning!

That's weird..imagine being 2 years old the morning after you were born!!?

Midnight_EG

Toulousain wrote: »

It is still the 201st decade.

Excuse me? 201st?

tolosenc

Midnight_EG wrote: »

Excuse me? 201st?

I don't get it...

Midnight_EG

Toulousain wrote: »

I don't get it...

Nevermind, read it as century at least 10 times.

galwayrush

OK, So, 2020 will not be the 20's and obviously 1920 was not in the 20's either.

Seriously, the OP is correct though.

karlog

Oh ffs will this horrible decade ever end!!!

ShooterSF

Mark200 wrote: »

It IS a new decade, maybe not the 201st decade... but as you said yourself "A decade is any arbitrary 10 year period."... and quite obviously people are now referring to the 10 years from ***0 - ***9 as 'the' decade to measure.

Happy new millennium so! (the millennium from 1909-2009)

bleg

my post count just entered a new millenium.

OutlawPete

galwayrush wrote: »

My wine tastes good, i'm going back to it.;)

You shouldn't be drinking at any time.

Your an on-call Getaway driver

galwayrush

OutlawPete wrote: »

You shouldn't be drinking at any time.

Your an on-call Getaway driver

Waiting for the call, need 24 hours notice..............;)