3 ms·
Decimated: What if Napoleon hadn’t abolished decimal time?
- Barnabas 17y agoThe very end of the article mentioned hexadecimal time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexadecimal_time http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexadecimal_time I like the idea of the 16-hour day, the 256-minute hour, and the 16-second minute. It makes at least as much sense as the divisions we have now; more in certain circumstances.
- moe 17y agoJust about any scheme would make more sense than the completely random nonsense that we have now. It's sad to see the gregorian calendar madness from over 400 years ago will probably even be carried into the space-age. For example, an intercalation scheme that intercalates single days and is based on the mean Martian tropical year of 668.5921 days can be approximated closely with a cycle of 45 leap years in 76 years because 66845⁄76 ≈ 668.592105 and 0.5921 × 76 = 44.9996. Easy, huh? Well, here's more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timekeeping_on_Mars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timekeeping_on_Mars
- ars 17y agoMisleading title - doesn't answer the question.
- Raphael 17y agoThe current system is actually quite convenient. You can divide hours and minutes by 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, and 12.
- mortehu 17y agoAnd the main reason why we want to divide hours, is that we want to make beautiful clock faces. The software I use for logging hours uses decimal fractions for minutes. Also, neither bc nor python has a reasonable syntax for summing 0:23 + 1:50.