/lit/ - Literature

>>22088279
Is there a year 0?

>>22088279
2000, although 2001 is arguably more 2000 than 2000, so piss shit cum fart I guess

>>22088288
retard or troll?

>>22088279
2000-2010 is the aughts decade
2001-3000 is the 21st century

>>22088307
So the first decade on the first century only had 9 years?

>>22088307
I'm retarded I meant 2001-2100

>>22088310
still retarded, just slightly less so.

>>22088313
I also meant 2000-2009 as the aughts decade. I promise I'm half asleep right now.

>>22088326
So there is a year 0?

>>22088330
No you're right the first decade of the first century only had 9 years.

>>22088282
IIRC they used to use ordinal numbers for calendars, so there was no year 0. Then again, modern astronomy has demonstrated that it's all a few years out anyway (you can calculate the years that comets passed Earth, and therefore when it would have been possible for 3 wise men to be lead by a wandering star). Also all the old calendars were slightly out of sync with Earth's orbit, which is why we now have a system of skipping 3 leap years in every 4 centuries.

>>22088339
Decades only start on the 0 when context suggests so, as in counting a decade from a certain date otherwise we go by calendar decades. The new decade starts a 1, the decade of the 80s starts at zero. The first decade of the first century had 10 years or it would not be a decade, this strictly refers to a calendar decade since no context is provided as to when we should start counting that decade. The first decade of your life is not the 00s or what ever, it is the first 10 years of your life and starts counting from the year of your birth. So the answer to OP is 2001 because he provided no context beyond calendar time.

A decade is always 10 years.

>>22088353
You are really over thinking it. We still use oridinal numbers for dates and all general counting.

2007

>>22088362
>over thinking it
Fine, going purely by intuition I say this is the last song that belongs in the 90s: youtube.com/watch?v=TixAjME3748
While it was performed in 1999, it was not released on an album until 2002. Therefore the 00s begin in 2003.

>>22090183
The 90s in that sense ended around 96. In that use you are referring to the culture which typified the 90s and not the decade of the 90s. This song is not at all 90s and is terrible.

>>22090288
Look who's overthinking now.

>>22090426
When you refer to the music of the 90s you are referring to culture which does not follow the calendar. This is not difficult and most people develop an intuitive understanding of these contexts without ever having them literally explained.

>>22090491
>culture vs calendar
>more rational thought
I've been accused of "over thinking", so I'm just going with my gut. Another option that just popped into my head is to go by your own birthday. So if you were born in 95, for example, then the new decade started in 2005.

>>22090607
I literally covered that in >>22088354
>The first decade of your life is not the 00s or what ever, it is the first 10 years of your life and starts counting from the year of your birth

>>22088279
2000
>i-i-is there a year 0?
nope
>t-then the first decade started in year 1!
yup
>s-so then the decade started in 2001!
nope
>b-but you're saying the first century had one less year than the others?
yup
>b-but that's not consistent!
yup
>that makes no sense!
makes sense to me
>how?!
year with new numbers is important. Simple as
>y-y-you can't say that!
just did

/thread