3 ms·

I believe IBM pay its UK workers on the 6th because at one point they wanted to move pay day to as early as possible without paying more than 12 times in a tax

• fragmede 2y ago
  Looking at the names of the months, September is the 9th month and October is the 10th? December is the 12th? Those names changed to those numberings roughly about the same time, and is also tech debt.
  • kridsdale1 2y ago
    I just looked that up (in 4o with Search), and it happened long before ceasar made the Julian calendar: “Your observation about the misalignment between the numerical prefixes of the later months and their positions in the calendar is astute. This discrepancy arises from the evolution of the Roman calendar over time. Original Roman Calendar: • Structure: The early Roman calendar, traditionally attributed to Romulus, the founder of Rome, comprised 10 months totaling 304 days. The year began in March (Martius) and concluded in December (December), followed by a winter period that was not assigned to any month. • Month Names and Numerical Order: 1. Martius (March) 2. Aprilis (April) 3. Maius (May) 4. Junius (June) 5. Quintilis (fifth month) 6. Sextilis (sixth month) 7. September (seventh month) 8. October (eighth month) 9. November (ninth month) 10. December (tenth month) Introduction of January and February: • Reforms by Numa Pompilius: To align the calendar more accurately with the lunar year, the second king of Rome, Numa Pompilius, is traditionally credited with adding two months: • Januarius (January) • Februarius (February) • Impact on Month Positions: These additions shifted the original months from their positions, making September the ninth month, October the tenth, and so forth. Despite this shift, the original names were retained, leading to the current numerical misalignment. Renaming of Quintilis and Sextilis: • Quintilis to July: In 44 BCE, following the assassination of Julius Caesar, the Roman Senate renamed Quintilis to July in his honor, as it was the month of his birth. • Sextilis to August: Later, in 8 BCE, the month Sextilis was renamed August to honor Emperor Augustus. To match the length of July, a day was added to August, resulting in both months having 31 days. Clarifying Misconceptions: • Insertion of Months: The renaming of Quintilis and Sextilis did not involve the insertion of new months but rather the renaming of existing ones. Therefore, this action did not disrupt the numerical sequence of the months. • Retention of Numerical Names: The numerical names for September through December persisted even after calendar reforms and the renaming of months. This retention is why there is a discrepancy between their names and their positions in the modern calendar. Conclusion: The misalignment between the numerical prefixes of the months September through December and their positions in the calendar results from historical reforms and the retention of traditional names despite changes in the calendar’s structure. The renaming of months to honor Julius Caesar and Augustus did not disrupt the numerical naming convention; instead, it was the earlier addition of January and February that shifted the original positions of the months, leading to the current nomenclature.”
    • kybernetikos 2y ago
      I'm not sure this is entirely correct, it implies a level of standardisation that I don't think was the case. Not everyone agreed when years were considered to have started or used the same numbering systems for a very long time, even after the Julian calendar was widely adopted. You can see how this played out in England, a relative latecomer to the increasing year start consensus. Up until the Calendar (New Style) Act of 1750, the year was considered to start on the 25th of March. This means that historical documents in England containing dates in January or February have what we would consider to be the 'wrong' year number on them. Pretty inconvenient, but at least the roman numbered months would have made some sense to a person living in England before 1750.