3 ms·
Yes it is. You're confusing what's right with what seems intuitively wrong to people. It's strange because it's inconsistent with most systems which group num
by steego 11y ago
Yes it is. You're confusing what's right with what seems intuitively wrong to people. It's strange because it's inconsistent with most systems which group numbers by significant digits. For example, a person who is 30 years old has entered their 30's.
For someone who is clearly perturbed that most people don't know this archaic and inconsistent rule, I'm surprised you're perturbed by a writer who is helping your cause by including a parenthetical. I suspect the writer selected the word "Strangely" to prompt the reader to pay special attention to the rule, because what he's about to say is going to violate many people's intuition and assumptions.
If you can't stand that people are unfamiliar with this rule, then this writer should be on your Christmas list.
- jchrisa 11y agoOne of my favorite things about HN is when people take the time to be extremely clear about something that's almost obvious. Always gives me a chuckle.
- cowsandmilk 11y ago> For example, a person who is 30 years old has entered their 30's. This is a different linguistic construct. We have decades like the 1990's, which are like the 30's. Linguistically, we have: 1800's = 1800-1899 19th century = 1801-1900 (since AD started in 1, so the first 100 years, or century were 1-100) One of those forms is linguistically similar to your 30's, the other is not.
- jameshart 11y agoOkay, but you enter your fourth decade on your 30th birthday, so there's less counterintuition involved in the age realm.
- eCa 11y ago> inconsistent rule Imho, it is not inconsistent and it is not a rule. It is a fact (as long as one uses the Gregorian calendar where there is no year zero[1]). [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0_%28year%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0_%28year%29