I hope questions are allowed here. I am curios if there is a different sort of scientific calendar which does not use the birth of Jesus as a reference like AD and BC. For example Kurzgesagt’s calendars use the the current year plus 10000 as this represents the human better or something like that.

Would there be a way to do this more accurately? How could we, in a scientific correct way, define a reference from where we are counting years?

Also I have read about the idea of having 13 months instead of 12 would be “nice” because then we could have a even distributed amount of days per month.

Are there already ideas for this? What would you recommend to read?

  • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
    0·
    3 months ago

    There’s nothing scientific about February having 28 days, but it would be an unnecessary pain in the ass to change it at this point.

      • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
        0·
        3 months ago

        How would you go about changing it and what would be the value in doing so?

        I remind you about the difficulty we are currently having eliminating Daylight Savings which requires actual effort to maintain

        • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
          0·
          3 months ago

          Quite simple.

          We change February to a 29 day month, and all the others to 28 days, then add a month named after the greatest person to ever live, DragonTypeWyvern. This results in 13 28 day months, and eliminates numerous scheduling mistakes and saves quite a lot of time, on the scale of the rest of human history (hopefully).

          Some say to have a separate global holiday with the extra day instead of putting it in February, with it extended to a two day holiday on Leap Years, however making February the longest month is funny.

          • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
            0·
            3 months ago

            That doesn’t answer how you would get everyone to go along with it. Every program with dates needs to be rewritten. I once again remind you the difficulty in getting rid of Daylight Savings time which requires effort on people to maintain and causes documented problems every year.

            You also haven’t explained why this would be worth the hassle of doing so.

            I did not say it would be difficult to develop a better system, I said it would be incredibly difficult to implement a better system.

      • PersonalDevKit@aussie.zone
        0·
        3 months ago

        On this point, it would be stupidly hard.

        Just from a programming and software perspective. All the old code that runs banks and the back end of air travel. It barely runs as it is, do a switch up of years, even leaving the months alone and it would probably freak out. Standadize the months while you are at it and the whole thing falls apart.

        Are you old enough to remember Y2K? That required a lot of techs to spend a huge amount of time fixing code that was never intended to see years change from 19xx to now just even consider 20xx.

        That is before we go about changing paper Birth Documents, marriage documents, house deads, … Should I go on?