Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by hamper653 | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

hamper653

We should have a 5-days week: A, B, C, D, E.

Weekend would be E and A.

12 months of 6 weeks each, except "February" with an extra week.

A would always the 1st, 6th, 11th, 16th, 21st, 26th or 31st (in "February").

B would always be the 2nd, 7th, etc.

Leap years would have a day F inserted between E and A at the end of "February" (of which it would be the 36th), keeping this new calendar consistent with the current one.

View on HN

Very curious to understand the thinking behind this, why should the weekend be E and A? My first approach would be to have the weekend on D and E which would seem to be the end of the week.

Right. WeekEND. It's the end of the week. Not one day at the start and one at the end. It's why, currently, the week starts on Monday.

In Hebrew Sunday doesn't have a name, it's simply called "Day one", this is also true in Portuguese, Arabic, Greek, Chinese, Vietnamese, and others.

So no, the week does not start on Monday, it starts on Sunday.

The name "Weekend" came long long long after Sunday was considered the first day of the week.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_week_date

ISO says Monday

That’s a late 20th century invention, and not universally followed. Consider Unix time functions, which predate the ISO standard and follow what’s common practice in America even today, that Sunday is the first day of the week. Of course, Sunday was the first day of the week in Europe for over a thousand years and that practice has not fully been extinguished.

> Right. WeekEND. It's the end of the week.

This only works in English though. The rest of us use the word "weekend" as a block.

It also works in German, Dutch, and presumably lots of other languages. In which ones does it not work?

In French. "End of week" would be "fin de semaine" but we don’t say that, we say "weekend". Which is understood as these two days when most people don’t work.

If anything, "fin de semaine" would refer to the last working days before the weekend.

> Very curious to understand the thinking behind this, why should the weekend be E and A?

So that the extra day on leap years could be inserted in a weekend while having its own unique number.

That would also just work with D E and F. Or am I missing something?

I would like F to be inserted in the middle of the weekend, not at the end of it.

You’d have to convince a lot of religious people to give up the day of rest they’ve considered a religious obligation for thousands of years.

Well, let’s rest (two days) every five days instead of seven.

That would defy the point. To Jews and Christians, the cadence is literally inscribed in stone. To quote the Ten Commandments: “Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. … For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.” Exodus 20:9,11 (ESV)

Christians don’t rest on Sabbath.

Edit: I mean, we do now because of weekends. But the rest-and-worship day is supposed to be Sunday, not Saturday.

It is very common for Christians to religously rest on Sunday (e.g., Puritan Sabbatarians) and even, for some, on the Jewish Sabbath (seventh‐day Sabbatarians). There’s been plenty of theological debate on the subject. It’s absolutely not true that Christians, categorically, don’t consider themselves obligated to rest on the Sabbath. And those who treat Sunday specially as the Lord’s Day also keep it on a seven‐day cadence.

> It is very common for Christians to religously rest on Sunday

Precisely: Saturday is written in stone, yet Christians typically rest and worship on Sundays. If we changed that, why couldn’t we change the seven-day cadence? It’s not like the Church would object to more masses.

The reasoning behind that change was religious, and those who made the decision were Christians. That most Christians accept that change doesn’t imply they would accept a contradictory change made for secular reasons.

It doesn’t mean they wouldn’t accept it either, and I don’t see how that’s contradictory. As I said: more masses. I am a Christian myself, by the way.

The churches that have "masses" have them daily already.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com