4 ms·
FTA, the ship crossed the international date line on December 31, 1899 so briefly the front of the ship was on Jan 1, 1900 while the back of the ship was still
by variaga 2y ago
FTA, the ship crossed the international date line on December 31, 1899 so briefly the front of the ship was on Jan 1, 1900 while the back of the ship was still in Dec 31, 1899.
Both of these dates are still in the 19th century, however, so "two centuries at once" is wrong. The 20th century did not begin until Jan 1, 1901.
- DonaldFisk 2y agoThat's true in strict usage where there's no year 0 between 1BC and 1AD, but in popular usage years in the 19th century begin with 18 (i.e. from 1800 to 1899), and in astronomical year numbering 1BC is year 0, so the first century is 1BC to 99AD inclusive, and so on. This is also true in ISO 8601.
- Stratoscope 2y agoAs a counterpoint, was the Y2K problem something that would have happened on January 1, 2001, or January 1, 2000? Sometimes the common understanding of a century as being the years xx00 through xx99 is more relevant than the "technical" understanding.
- Thorrez 2y agoThe article covers that: >And then, of course, there’s the matter of the new century. As some may remember from the whole Y2K hullaballoo, centuries (and millennia) only end when the year ending in zero is over, not when it starts. So, just like the 21st century and the third millennium started on January 1, 2001, the 20th century began on January 1, 1901, not 1900. (Not that this chronological truth got in the way of popular opinion.)