3 ms·

I've been a proponent of this reform for a while. Strangely on my way into work this morning I was trying to figure out why a week is 7 days and not some other

I've been a proponent of this reform for a while. Strangely on my way into work this morning I was trying to figure out why a week is 7 days and not some other division. I thought maybe it was religious, but I now think it has more to do with lunar cycles being close to 28 days and that predating any religious foundation. 12 months has the benefit of dividing the seasons into 3 month quarters. However having an uneven number of days per month and with the solstices and equinoxes falling somewhat haphazardly on the calendar, this doesn't seem like a good reason to stick with the current system. As long as we're redesigning the calendar system, I think the solstice and the equinox should fall in the middle of a season with the Winter Solstice effectively marking the start of the calendar year as a holiday. The leap day could be the day that proceeds that, effectively being used as a day to mark the end of the year. Seasons would then define periods of similar daylight. The only reasons not to adopt this sort of calendar are ceremonial. Having a 13 month calendar simplifies so much from financial calculations to having consistent day of week/month boundaries that I can't see any real down sides. I have no idea how to promote widespread adoption of a new calendar, but it is something I've thought about a lot.

jack-r-abbit 13y ago
> Having a 13 month calendar simplifies so much from financial calculations to having consistent day of week/month boundaries that I can't see any real down sides. It seems like that would complicate the business practice of dividing your fiscal year into quarters. I guess each quarter would be 3 months + 1 week but then you don't have quarters starting/ending evenly with months.
- jberryman 13y ago
  Solution: everyone takes the extra month off.
- JelteF 13y ago
  Quarters are broken now as well. Currently the quarters aren't actually quarters. Since the months that are in them aren't all the same length.
- chinpokomon 13y ago
  Not really. You have 13 months, but you have 4 weeks each month. The first quarter is 3 months and 1 week. Then 6 and 2, and 9 and 3. The final quarter ends at the end of the year. Today if you pay a monthly fee for something, the daily cost varies month-to-month. Why should things cost the most in February? While it may be true that fiscal quarters won't be aligned with month boundaries, they are more evenly spaced.
jerf 13y ago
A fun read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Week#.22Weeks.22_in_other_calendars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Week#.22Weeks.22_in_other_calen... In general, I can't imagine what month reform could be done that would be worth the pain of switching. Computers are doing all the hard calculations now. While calendars throw programmers for a loop sometimes, what really nails programmers (and therefore computers) are timezones and all the screwy things we do with seconds. Changing calendars is orthogonal to those problems, and the possibility of real reform on that front is more likely, since the costs/benefits work out more pleasingly.
- toyg 13y ago
  The current system was built for agriculture - "quarters" matching periods of different agricultural activities. It just does not make any sense in post-agricultural societies. This was clearly recognised at the beginning of the XX century, then abandoned as anglo-european elites slowly retreated into cultural traditionalism (as a defensive reaction against the rise of socialism). Saying that it doesn't matter because computers do it for us is just hiding dirt under the carpet. I agree that timezone and second adjustments are more problematic, but having a more rational overall approach would also help there: you would have a "hack zone" where to dump all the madness (the special 1-day/2-days period), making it easier to deal with any adjustment. Currently, you are inserting most changes on 1 January and / or 31 December, but then also hacking February for no particular reason, all the while not being able to use the week as a meaningful unit. Throughout history, we experienced periods when people would not shy away from bold cultural and rational changes in order to improve life for future generations. Holding the (adjusted) Gregorian calendar as an ultimate taboo is just sad.
jpmattia 13y ago
> I was trying to figure out why a week is 7 days and not some other division. The first chapter of Daniel Boorstin's The Discovers has an interesting history of calendars and time-keeping. For the question of Why a seven-day week, start on page 13: http://books.google.com/books?id=aEr07wJ21NYC&lpg=PA13&vq=7%20days&pg=PA13#v=snippet&q=7%20days&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=aEr07wJ21NYC&lpg=PA13&vq=7%... tl;dr The week varied among cultures, and the seven-day week was in use by the Romans by the third century. Each day of the week honored one of the seven "planets" (in the ancient use of the word, a wanderer in the sky): Sun Moon Mars Venus Mars Mercury Jupiter Venus and Saturn. Derivations of those words are still in use today.
dajohnson89 13y ago
Take out Daylight Savinga Time while you're at it, and I'm on board.

jack-r-abbit 13y ago

> Having a 13 month calendar simplifies so much from financial calculations to having consistent day of week/month boundaries that I can't see any real down sides. It seems like that would complicate the business practice of dividing your fiscal year into quarters. I guess each quarter would be 3 months + 1 week but then you don't have quarters starting/ending evenly with months.

jberryman 13y ago
Solution: everyone takes the extra month off.
JelteF 13y ago
Quarters are broken now as well. Currently the quarters aren't actually quarters. Since the months that are in them aren't all the same length.
chinpokomon 13y ago
Not really. You have 13 months, but you have 4 weeks each month. The first quarter is 3 months and 1 week. Then 6 and 2, and 9 and 3. The final quarter ends at the end of the year. Today if you pay a monthly fee for something, the daily cost varies month-to-month. Why should things cost the most in February? While it may be true that fiscal quarters won't be aligned with month boundaries, they are more evenly spaced.

jerf 13y ago

A fun read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Week#.22Weeks.22_in_other_calendars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Week#.22Weeks.22_in_other_calen... In general, I can't imagine what month reform could be done that would be worth the pain of switching. Computers are doing all the hard calculations now. While calendars throw programmers for a loop sometimes, what really nails programmers (and therefore computers) are timezones and all the screwy things we do with seconds. Changing calendars is orthogonal to those problems, and the possibility of real reform on that front is more likely, since the costs/benefits work out more pleasingly.

toyg 13y ago
The current system was built for agriculture - "quarters" matching periods of different agricultural activities. It just does not make any sense in post-agricultural societies. This was clearly recognised at the beginning of the XX century, then abandoned as anglo-european elites slowly retreated into cultural traditionalism (as a defensive reaction against the rise of socialism). Saying that it doesn't matter because computers do it for us is just hiding dirt under the carpet. I agree that timezone and second adjustments are more problematic, but having a more rational overall approach would also help there: you would have a "hack zone" where to dump all the madness (the special 1-day/2-days period), making it easier to deal with any adjustment. Currently, you are inserting most changes on 1 January and / or 31 December, but then also hacking February for no particular reason, all the while not being able to use the week as a meaningful unit. Throughout history, we experienced periods when people would not shy away from bold cultural and rational changes in order to improve life for future generations. Holding the (adjusted) Gregorian calendar as an ultimate taboo is just sad.

jpmattia 13y ago

> I was trying to figure out why a week is 7 days and not some other division. The first chapter of Daniel Boorstin's The Discovers has an interesting history of calendars and time-keeping. For the question of Why a seven-day week, start on page 13: http://books.google.com/books?id=aEr07wJ21NYC&lpg=PA13&vq=7%20days&pg=PA13#v=snippet&q=7%20days&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=aEr07wJ21NYC&lpg=PA13&vq=7%... tl;dr The week varied among cultures, and the seven-day week was in use by the Romans by the third century. Each day of the week honored one of the seven "planets" (in the ancient use of the word, a wanderer in the sky): Sun Moon Mars Venus Mars Mercury Jupiter Venus and Saturn. Derivations of those words are still in use today.

dajohnson89 13y ago

Take out Daylight Savinga Time while you're at it, and I'm on board.