4 ms·
Sadly, the 100 day year never worked quite right.
by nancyminusone 1y ago
Sadly, the 100 day year never worked quite right.
- thrance 1y agoNo but they had a clean year of 12 months, 30 days each (3 ten-day weeks) plus 5/6 holiday days at the end of the calendar (around the September equinox). Also, the months were given names by a Poet, and the days had minerals, vertues or plants instead of Saints. The calendar itself was pretty cool. Honestly, if they had 5 weeks of 6 days each instead of the 3 weeks of 10 days, I'd even call it the perfect calendar.
- Snow_Falls 1y agoMight I introduce you to visions of what could have been: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar_reform https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar_reform
- tempestn 1y agoBetter would be an even more fundamental change: instead of trying to standardize everything on base 10, recognize that base 8 or 16 is much more convenient in both computing and everyday life, and standardize around that.
- dragontamer 1y agoHistorically, the most convenient are numbers with large numbers of factors. 60 can be split into 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 20, 30 evenly for example The other number that accomplishes this is 12: 2, 3, 4, 6 are all factors. That's why 12 and 60 are so common for real life systems.
- andrepd 1y agoDefinitely not, but very composite numbers are! Like 6, 12, 24, or the best of them all, 60.
- tempestn 1y agoBase-60 for everyday life would be nuts; you really think it would be more convenient to have 60 independent digit symbols? There's an argument for 12 for sure, but I still think having a power of 2 would be more beneficial than having the extra factors. 8 would give you the same number of integer factors as 10, plus all the benefits of being a power of 2.