> Author makes a good point. "1700s" is both more intuitive and more concise than "18th century". Yea, but a rhetorical failure. This sounds terrible and far w

> Author makes a good point. "1700s" is both more intuitive and more concise than "18th century". Yea, but a rhetorical failure. This sounds terrible and far worse than alternatives. If we want a better system we'll need to either abandon the day or the Gregorian (Julian + drift) caliendar.