Why don't we make our calendar more rational and simple?

[Myuncle]

As wikipedia says "A calendar is a system of organizing days for social, religious, commercial or administrative purposes. This is done by giving names to periods of time, typically days, weeks, months, and years. A date is the designation of a single, specific day within such a system. Periods in a calendar (such as years and months) are usually, though not necessarily, synchronized with the cycle of the sun or the moon."

But why don't we get rid of the months? After all, they were based on the Moon's orbital period, but do we still need that today? Do we even need to think about them? As long as we know that a year is 365 days (apart from the leap year), isn't that enough for our calendar? So, if we want to keep a useful cycle in our calendar, we could keep the days, weeks, and year, but scrap months completely. So, example, instead of writing a date like this:

"14, Fabruary, 2014"

we could simply write: "45, 2014".

Each year has 365 days, and every year would have 52 weeks (364/7=52), but the last week of the year will be 8 days, instead of seven. And during the leap year, the last week will last 9 days. Simple and logical. What do you think?

[Sensei]

What do you think?

 

Sounds like more complications than it's all worth.

 

Especially for software.

Timestamp is typically stored as number of seconds since 1970.

Edited April 12, 2014 by Sensei

[Asterisk Propernoun]

Changing the time system? That sounds like what Maximilian Robespierre tried to do. He ended up getting his head chopped off by a guillotine.

 

I do agree with the fact that our current system of time is outdated, but you have to remember that our entire world was built on that system. Changing it would cause so many complications that it simply wouldn't be worth it.

[Endy0816]

We're a species resistant to change and all of our terms are basically arbitrary.

[Greg H.]

 

Sounds like more complications than it's all worth.

 

Especially for software.

Timestamp is typically stored as number of seconds since 1970.

Why would that change? All that would really change is how you display the date itself in human readable form. And we manipulate that programmatically anyway depending on he needs of the user.

[Delta1212]

Why use weeks? That's a fairly arbitrary period to distinguish.

 

For that matter, what's the point of hours and minutes? Just use seconds. Then 5pm would be 61,200. Much simpler.

[Sensei]

Why would that change? All that would really change is how you display the date itself in human readable form. And we manipulate that programmatically anyway depending on he needs of the user.

For instance - to display name of day of week currently we have to execute following code:

 

int seconds = time(NULL); // input data

const char *daynames[] = { "Mon", "Tue", "Wed", .... "Sun" };

int days = seconds / ( 60 * 60 * 24 );

printf( "Today is %s\n", daynames[ ( days + 3 ) % 7 ];

 

OP postulated extending quantity of days of week:

but the last week of the year will be 8 days, instead of seven. And during the leap year, the last week will last 9 days.

 

[Greg H.]

For instance - to display name of day of week currently we have to execute following code:

 

int seconds = time(NULL); // input data

const char *daynames[] = { "Mon", "Tue", "Wed", .... "Sun" };

int days = seconds / ( 60 * 60 * 24 );

printf( "Today is %s\n", daynames[ ( days + 3 ) % 7 ];

 

OP postulated extending quantity of days of week:

 

True, but it's just a matter of calculating the number of the week first, and if it's a leap year or not. Most calendar management classes can already do this (f.e. Calendar.getWeekYear() in Java 7). My point is, while any new system will be somewhat difficult for humans to get used to, computer calculations will barely hiccup so long as the developers have the requisite notice to prepare for the change.

 

Note that I am not necessarily endorsing the system being espoused in the OP. I think adding days to the end of one week a year is an unnecessarily cumbersome way of doing it.

Edited April 12, 2014 by Greg H.

[Myuncle]

 

Note that I am not necessarily endorsing the system being espoused in the OP. I think adding days to the end of one week a year is an unnecessarily cumbersome way of doing it.

Weeks can be scrapped altogether if we want, they are useful only to remind us that "we are suppose to rest every 7 days...". But adding one day in the final week on the year (and two in the leap year) is still better than trying to figure out how many days there will be in a month.

Why use weeks? That's a fairly arbitrary period to distinguish.

 

For that matter, what's the point of hours and minutes? Just use seconds. Then 5pm would be 61,200. Much simpler.

well, counting until 356 it's not big deal, counting until 61.200 it's a bit stressful.

[hoola]

there are many, many things that should be changed about our way of life, and getting rid of months seems rather pointless as we hurdle towards enviornmental disaster...

[Phi for All]

We're a species resistant to change and all of our terms are basically arbitrary.

 

We change according to a very short list of priorities, and "intuitive systems" didn't make the cut. It's not enough benefit that our calendars are made more rational, we need a whole lot more to make a change of this magnitude.

 

If they gave us the extra day each year as some kind of uber-special capital-D Day of Something Outrageously Awesome, we could change pretty quickly. Something along the psychological lines of opening up the fire hydrants on a hot day, but for adults.

[swansont]

I think anyone looking at a history of the changes in our calendar, even just going from Julian to Gregorian (which took hundreds of years for full adoption), would understand what a monumental undertaking it would be to make more radical changes. You'd need to show a clear benefit to commerce to make anyone take notice.

[Greg H.]

I think anyone looking at a history of the changes in our calendar, even just going from Julian to Gregorian (which took hundreds of years for full adoption), would understand what a monumental undertaking it would be to make more radical changes. You'd need to show a clear benefit to commerce to make anyone take notice.

By "benefit to commerce" do you mean "increases profit"?

[swansont]

By "benefit to commerce" do you mean "increases profit"?

 

Basically. Common standards remove a barrier to trade, so that trade becomes easier and both sides of a transaction benefit — lower costs, higher profit. (That's a reason that NIST in the US is part of the Department of Commerce) I'm not going to trade you a quiillat of grain for seventeen grupnars of wine unless I know what those amounts mean, preferably in some repeatable and easily realizable way, i.e. defining a quiilat as the weight of a seven-day old Thrungbeast would not qualify.

[Phi for All]

I'm not going to trade you a quiillat of grain for seventeen grupnars of wine unless I know what those amounts mean, preferably in some repeatable and easily realizable way, i.e. defining a quiilat as the weight of a seven-day old Thrungbeast would not qualify.

 

Hah! Like anyone could even catch a Thrungbeast after day five when all its feet inflate.

 

That's a quiillat of trouble I don't need!

[swansont]

Hah! Like anyone could even catch a Thrungbeast after day five when all its feet inflate.

 

 

Precisely my point.

 

As easy as catching a wooflebird without a net, to be sure.

[Greg H.]

Speaking of Thrungbeasts, anyone know how to get the smell out of the carpet?

[Phi for All]

Speaking of Thrungbeasts, anyone know how to get the smell out of the carpet?

 

Easy. Wait another day. The smell will be out of the carpet because the carpet will be disintegrated.

 

The smell will still be in your house, but that's OK. Wait another week....