13 Months: The Kodak Calendar Experiment
theinternetsaysitstrue.com
theinternetsaysitstrue.com
Specifically (omitting a lot for brevity) :
You advocate a
( ) solar ( ) lunar (x) lunisolar
approach to calendar reform. Your idea will not work. Here is why:
(x) solar years are real and the calendar year needs to sync with them
(x) solar days are real and the calendar day needs to sync with them
(x) the solar year cannot be evenly divided into solar days
(x) having one or two days per year which are part of no month is stupid
(x) your name for the thirteenth month is questionable
(x) the solar year cannot be evenly divided into seven-day weeks
Specifically, your plan fails to account for:
(x) rational hatred for arbitrary change
(x) unpopularity of weird new month and day names
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(x) good luck trying to move the Fourth of July
(x) the history of calendar reform is insanely complicated and no amount of further calendar reform can make it simpler
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(x) sorry, but I don't think it would workToday is nonidi 9 Fructidor in the year of the Republic CCXXX, celebrating liquorice, you churlish counter revolutionary!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Republican_calendar
Twitter bot that tells you day https://twitter.com/sansculotides
But whatever dude. Don’t lose your head over it.
This is perhaps the weakest of the objections, it has been done and it could be doable, if we wanted it.
But nobody really cares.
like the Giliacs!
Excel would throw a fit, but I propose that numeric date formats handle these unmonthed days as follows:
US-en: __/01/1989, GB-en: 01-__-1989, ISOish: 1989-01-__
That Javascript format: Blessed ___ 01 1989 15:42:03 GMT-0800 (Pacific Standard Time)
It's not at all a weak objection. I mean, sure, months are arbitrary in the first place and it's not physically impossible to set up a system where there are days outside of months. A system set up that way might not be any more complicated than our current system since it would simplify other aspects of dates. But making that change would fundamentally break a lot of our assumptions about dates in ways that would require a ton of effort to fix (good luck getting any existing software dealing with dates to work properly after that) for very little benefit, so it's an incredibly bad idea.
The article also says that the extra days wouldn't even be assigned days of the week, which is even worse.
Software modeling would be easy. For software it is an additional month with only 1 or 2 days. However because it would be a holiday most humans wouldn't need to talk about it as a month.
You will also have to consider actions that are performed on the first of the month and possibly special case these months. This also means that effectively you have just made the length of months even more variable and confusing.
It's really only "easy" in the sense that it is possible to fit it into existing date data structures, but it's not necessarily that "easy" in terms of updating business logic.
> However because it would be a holiday most humans wouldn't need to talk about it as a month.
It can't be a holiday for everyone and it will still need to be something that people think about. Hospitals, fire departments, police, and websites that are expected to operate 24/7 will still need to operate and handle the special day. It will probably also need to be a new special case in literally every contract (leases, employment contracts, billing terms, etc.).
The human aspects are perhaps even harder than the computer aspects because it won't be possible to simply think of it as a 1 day month, it will HAVE to be special cased.
The original article also said that the extra day would not be assigned a day of the week. This is even more confusing. Currently, every 7 days is one week regardless of years, but if this change is made, for any action that needs to be performed once every seven days, either a decision will have to be made on whether 1) to perform/not perform the action on the special day depending on what day it WOULD have been if it wasn't the special day and then shift the day of the week for the next year, or 2) allow an interval of 8-9 days once a year.
Even though there is currently a slight inconvenience from 1) months having different numbers of days and 2) days of the week not being the same every month, these reflect the realities that months are arbitrary and don't match up to solar years/days.
The proposed change is actually arguably worse because it has to add even more complexity in the form of edge cases to try to pretend these problems don't exist.
* February deserves to have more days, so that every month has either 30 or 31 days. Taking away 1 day from August and January, and giving them to Feb would do it. In leap years, Feb can have 31 days.
* The year ought to start on March 1st. So that September regains its place as the 7th month, October the 8th month, November the 9th month, and December the 10th month. Because that's what "Sept", "Oct", "Nov", and "Dec" mean.
In addition to making the number months make sense again, it would also make leap day at the end of the year (again), which probably also makes more sense.
I think your point about February is probably good, but I don't know that pushing two changes is possible.
Please keep that idea to whatever languages that assign those names to months. East Asian languages have been calling them literally "month 1/2/3/etc." without problems, just like how most languages don't have 31 different words for each day in a month.
Alternatively, if we have to give months aliases, why not fix those languages by e.g. reassigning "September" to the 7th month?
Except of course for that extra day (or two) here & there somewhere in the year.
TEC has many unique properties. It breaks down into many mathematical models. One week can be divided into whole days by 2, 3, and 6. They can be divided by 4 as well, with half days. One month can similarly be divided into weeks. One month can be divided into whole days by 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 12, and 18. The 60 week year, not counting the last week, can be divided evenly by 2, 3, 4, 6, 12, 15, and 30.
Triangular Earth Calendar is named so because of its triangular properties. Unlike most calendars which are viewed only on a square grid, TEC is viewed in its most natural form, the triangle. The following are representations of TEC in triangular form:
Here is the view of a single week.
1
2 3
4 5 6
That is the same for weeks in a month. Here is the view of days in a month (using single numbers only). 1
2 3
4 5 6
7 8 9 0
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 0 1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Here is the same view, but with days and weeks in a month. Each number is a day, each small triangle is a week, the entire is a month. 1
2 3
4 5 6
1 1
2 3 2 3
4 5 6 4 5 6
1 1 1
2 3 2 3 2 3
4 5 6 4 5 6 4 5 6In short, no one will approve something like this calendar change unless only 5 year olds get to vote.
[0]: https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/supplier/resources/m...
There's a Google Calendar setting "Show week numbers" that will show the ISO workweeks in the little month calendar at top left.
The low-key success of week-number calendars points to what I think was the big reason the Comté calendar never took off: Months are, unless you're working in a maritime environment, an unnecessary intermediary unit of measure, and for most are only valuable for their legacy cultural references. Redefining them should have been a non-starter.
A week-number calendar is great because it's simpler than trying to retrofit a year-month-day structure, yet still allows legacy Gregorian months to be seamlessly overlaid on it. The Intel PDF is a great example of this.
2021-29-12 (29th week of the year, 12th day of the month)
Or do I write:
2021-29-02 (29th week of the year, second day of the week)
The linked PDF makes it seem like the former. But the latter makes more sense in my head because it doesn't rely on months (which is seemingly the whole point)
The Julian calendar has leap days every four years. What Pope Gregory the 13th did was remove it from every 100th year (except those divided by 400, hence why 2000 was a leap year). Otherwise the difference between the Gregorian and Julian calendars would be far more than the 12-13 days they are now.
Lots of figuring out when to run things… I had that exact poster up on my wall in my cube that’s shown in the article.
Good times, good times.
So revenue/day was up in May, and there are more days in May, but total revenue was down in May? What's the explanation?
The Kodak calendar fixes that as all months have four weekends.
Better yet, let's just get rid of months. They make no sense as a unit of time. There is no other measurement that can have multiple different values depending on the time of year. Imagine if the length of a meter varied, life would be madness.
That's how Russia lived for the two centuries:
https://www.rbth.com/history/331074-russia-late-for-olympics...
My grandfather, who turned 10 in 1929, vaguely recalled how the country briefly abandoned universal weekends, which meant a mess scheduling anything family-related. Everyone had different work schedules. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_calendar
When literacy rates were low, and many people were farmers, it was important to be able to easily anchor schedules to the seasons. Having May 30 always be the right time to start planting your crunchberry crop was a viable oral-tradition thing.
But in an industrial society, we can fairly easily publish "peak season for crunchberries this year starts June 6" even if that's five days earlier than last year.
Then we can pick, say, a 360-day year with no leap-nothing for ease of record keeping.
There are some activities that might legitimately be seasonal-- you don't want the kids playing $active_sport when it's 45C outside, so we might need to realign their calendars each year, but not a huge deal breaker. Reggie Jackson could be "Mr. When The Afternoon High is 28C" instead of "Mr. October."
Working 8.5 a day instead of 8, you’d get ~61x34=2074 hours of work per year
Working typical 8 hour days is 2080 hours per year, so we miss only 6 hours, but have to work only 2/3rds of the days.
Any calendar that tries to introduce a day that “outside” the flow of seven days is going to be antisemitic even if unintentionally.
Why do you think a calendar should be aligned (sort of) to them?
The number of Things What Move humans could pick out with their naked eyes has no impact on any kind of time measurement.
True.
> From there it follows that the cycles of the other planets may also be important.
Not particularly, no.
> Isn't it amazing, for example, that Jupiter's cycle is 12 years and there are 12 lunations in a year? The cycle of Uranus is 84 which is 12 x 7. There's also a subtle mathematical relationship between 12 and 7. 12 = 3 x 4, 7 = 3 + 4. You have to have eyes to see these patterns.
None of that is amazing in the slightest, and your base numerology won't make it amazing.
You can find coincidences everywhere if your definitions are loose enough.