4 ms·
It’s start date is still a religious event, so I’m not sure it’s more neutral as much as it’s more obfuscating.
by cityofdelusion 3y ago
It’s start date is still a religious event, so I’m not sure it’s more neutral as much as it’s more obfuscating.
- drewcoo 3y agoIt was not exactly methodically chosen by Dionysius Exiguus in the 6th century. Mostly to replace Diocletian's calendar. Jesus was most likely born before 1 AD.
- CobrastanJorji 3y agoSure, but it's an incredible amount of work to change the year numbering, and it's easy to change the word we use for the calendar. The French revolutionaries tried it, and they discovered that no matter how much people agree with the idea and want to switch in theory, it's really, really hard to do. Mind you, the French Republican calendar was a LOT of changes, all at once. First, they started counting over at year 1. That'd be a big enough change, but they also decided to use a calendar with 12 months with nice secular, names, each with 3 weeks, where a week had ten days with nice, secular names (plus some extra days on the end of the year as needed). That'd be a huge change, but they also decided to switch to the decimal system, so a day would have exactly 10 hours of 100 minutes each. And that turned out to just be way too much, and the whole thing fell over. Anyway, that's kind of tangential to your point, but I just like thinking about the French Republican calendar. I hope you have a happy 4th of Pluviôse, Ere Républicain 232.
- devnullbrain 3y agoMy patriotic side hopes we will all use this reasoning to revert to using GMT instead of UTC.