If the day started at 1:00 then by the second hour you would be at 2:00, even though only 1 hour has passed. Effectively the day starts at 0. In fact in 24-hour time that is how it’s depicted, 00:00 with midday being depicted as 12:00, so it isn’t confusing
Careful, there are Americans around
Americans love units based on 12
As a programmer I’d rather it start at 0
Yeah but now you can’t enjoy the delights of python
In the roman empire the day/night cycle was divided into 24 segments. 12 for the day and 12 for the night which also meant a day hour in summer was longer than the night hour.
Which is also why I hate that our calendar starts at year 1.
If the day started at 1:00 then by the second hour you would be at 2:00, even though only 1 hour has passed.
When the second day of the month starts, the day of the month is 2, even though only 1 day has passed.
I mean, numerically it does make sense to start at zero but it doesn’t seem to correspond to the way people think and talk.
Feel free to take it up with the Romans. It’s their stupid calendar system.
I also take issue with there being 7 days in a week rather than 10, it’s just messy.
Somebody never had a clock with roman numerals and it shows
I remember getting into an argument with a grade school teacher over IIII because most such clocks put that for 4 instead of IV because of some fuckin reason
I despise these so so much. IIII was historically NEVER correct. Some doofus decided to put that on a clock because it looks more symmetrical with the VIII on the other side. Terrible reasoning.
IIII was the way Romans usually wrote 4. It’s associated with simplicity / illiteracy. But also depended on era, region, intended audience, or practicality. I think the most famous example is the coliseum using LIIII.
There’s still variation even now; standardization is relatively new, and it’s not common knowledge. And dates… it’s like every 50-100 years people decided to write them differently.
“However, even though it is now widely accepted that 4 must be written IV, the original and most ancient pattern for Roman numerals wasn’t the same as what we know today. Earliest models did, in fact, use VIIII for 9 (instead of IX) and IIII for 4 (instead of IV). However, these two numerals proved problematic, they were easily confused with III and VIII. Instead of the original additive notation, the Roman numeral system changed to the more familiar subtractive notation. However, this was well after the fall of the Roman Empire.”
https://monochrome-watches.com/why-do-clocks-and-watches-use-roman-numeral-iiii-instead-of-iv/
Weird, I’ve seen many analog clocks with Roman numerals but always IV for 4.
It’s actually called the “clockmakers four” or “watchmakers four.” it’s a thing.
Yeah I looked it up and saw it is a thing, and it’s interesting. I wonder if the clock I’m thinking of was just a really cheap one that was labeled as you’d expect based on Roman numerals or whether some just didn’t follow it.
To be fair, Google searching Roman numerals clocks give you about a 50/50 distribution.
I wasn’t aware of this either and I suspect we’re not alone. It’s not highly noticeable and if there’s a 50-50 chance won’t even see it…
False. I had a clock that used IIII instead.
Your clock having it doesn’t change that mine didn’t.
deleted by creator
It’s the same logic that was used by ancient astronomers to arrive at 360 degrees for a full revolution.
The math is easier if you have to do it by hand.
These are called “superior highly composite numbers” apparently https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_highly_composite_number
It’s also the one advantage Imperial has over metric. It’s easier to do mental math in a lot of cases in base 12 rather than base 10.
Now excuse me while I bar my windows and doors from the mobs of angry people that show every time I point this out.
Only really counts for feet and inches. But yes, having your base unit be divisible by halves, thirds, quarters, sixths, and twelths with whole numbers of sub units is highly useful when fabricating objects when you don’t have access to modern tooling and supplies. In fact I would argue base 12 is the superior numerical system that was abandoned for metric and we have lost something in the meantime. Though Jan Misali might disagree with his love for sexinal.
Imperial units do have another advantage to this day, though. When talking about machining bolts and threads Imperial use threads per inch or threads per unit length while metric uses the pitch of the thread, so mm in-between threads. This decision means that when machining imperial nuts and bolts we by default pick whole numbers of threads per inch which due to the circular nature of lathes means that a simple clock dial can keep the lead screw synchronised with the head. Since metric uses pitch we pick numbers like 1.25mm pitch which does not always synchronous well with the lead screw and head and requires some odd gear ratios to cut specific threads.
True, but why does volume/length/weight have to be separated? I honestly wouldn’t mind a base 12 system if they were connected logically.
I should have been more precise, I was really just talking about length measurements and less so on the holy fuckshit of everything else. I, too, would be super on board with a base 12 measurement system…
If we invent it we can have 3 competing standards!
Let me jump in until the mobs show up. “Noooooo, it’s just what you’re used to lalala. When is dividing by thirds ever useful, anyway?”.
I’ve also found that if you make this point without any reference to metric vs imperial, people tend to accept it.
That’s a good tip. I’ll keep that in mind next time this topic comes up.
Poor 70. Imagine being the objectively “weird” one out of a hundred.
You’ve gone 360 on me.
The 6 means 30, both of which also mean 1/2
Relatively funny but gets worse the more you think about it.
The 6 stands for 6, not 30.
When we have AM and PM it would be dumb to have 1-24.
1 is the end of the 1st hour. 2 the end of the second. This is why it starts at 0.
0
She’s a witch!
Only if she weighs as much as a duck.
She turned me into a naught!
*newt btw.
Yes, that was the intended play on words.
“At least we’re not mixing in letters”
I see
IIIIin there and I cry a little on the inside.This has become a standard on analog clocks and watches (presumably to avoid confusion with VI), but for some reason IX and XI (for 9 and 11 respectively) is fine.
Personally I’d like to see IX and IIIIIIIIIII.
ETA: I guess IX and XI are ‘fine’ because they’re not upside down, but my point still stands.
Hour hand -> hour = n
Minute hand -> minute = n * 5
It makes sense, there’s just an algorithm attached to each pointer.Hour -> 3 = 3
Minute -> 3 = 3 * 5 = 15The first clocks didn’t have a minute hand though.
Well it’s because noon means nine because the day starts at six o’ clock, so three is noon, but we use it to mean twelve which is closer to midday, obviously
At least we’re not mixing in letters
Zulu Time: Am I a joke to you?
Also see this: https://gist.github.com/timvisee/fcda9bbdff88d45cc9061606b4b923ca
It amazingly explains all the insanities for handling dates and times.
For some reason I heard this in a combination of the voices of Mitch Hedberg, and Nate Bargatze as George Washington.
6 means 30 is some toilet paper math
Sounds like a Michael McIntyre bit
At least our hours are the same length regardless of latitude now, so let’s be grateful for that.
oh god, thanks for making me imagine something terrible
IIRC they counted the bones in their fingers using their thumb and that gives 12. The first sundial was around the equator and there is always light for half a day, so half a day becomes 12 hours.
To count large numbers often one hand was used to count using 5 fingers and the other to count the bones, so you get 5x12 for 60 minutes.
AIUI there was an aspect in the divisibility of the numbers being convenient.
12 is divisible by 2, 3, 4, and 6. 60 is divisible by 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 20, and 30.
10 is divisible by 2 and 5. 100 is divisible by 2, 4, 5, 10, 20, 25, and 50.
If you want to minimize dealing with fractions, 12 and 60 are far more convenient than 10 and 100.
That’s an interesting thought, but I believe it to simply be a coincidence.
The base 12 counting being based on counting the division of your fingers is historically verified, but if the division aspect was so compelling to them you’d expect it to carry forward into their writing system.
By the time you get cuneiform math though, they actually go back to base 10.
https://images.app.goo.gl/9GR6VEiT7GHYF3KaA
As you can see base 12 is not in the written system, or for written mathematics. It just was convenient for counting on their hands.
They used mixes of base 10/base 12 and base 60.
Base 10 would be used go determine the symbols for a specific “digit” in base 60.
So similar to how our 13 is 1 ten and 3 ones, their 13 was the symbol for 10 then 3 symbols for 1. 13 = 𒌋𒁹𒁹𒁹 But 73 would be written 𒁹 𒌋𒁹𒁹𒁹
Which would be interpreted as 1 sixty and 13 ones, or 60 + 13
I’ma start a revolution where we use duodecimal metric for everything, including time.
That’s how we ended up with 12 months of varying length in a year and it’s a mess.
It’s a problem no matter how you divide the year
That’s why I propose changing the orbit of the earth, too
13 months of 4 weeks + new year’s day (+leap day) actually fits perfectly.
I wouldn’t call having an unassigned remainder “perfectly”. And always, leap day fucking shit up lol
Not if you divide by 5. It gets you 73 days each.
Ok, but now subdivide the 73 day month-analogs into week-analogs.
I can see calling the month analogs “seasons”, but 73 is a prime number so you’re boned. We need subdivisions smaller than that for practical purposes
