It is not the end of the decade

[Benoit]

Many think it's the end of the decade, and the media is jumping on the opportunity to have many "best of" lists of things in the "past decade".

But it's not the end of the decade. The decade ends at the end of 2010. Why? Because our calendar starts at year 1. Not 0.

For some people, this is only a statement, not proof. Excuse me, but how is it not proof? Do you want me to prove that the Gregorian calendar starts at year 1?

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

There is no year 0; AD 1 immediately follows 1 BC.

From there, it's simple arithmetic. The first decade would be 1-10. The second decade would be 11-20. And so on, until we get 2001-2010.

[Clarste]

It's the end of a decade that consists in the years 2000-2009. There's also a decade that lasts from 1995-2004. The only reason no one cares about those other decades is because... no one cares. Decades aren't important in the first place; the only thing that gives them value is people's perceptions. So if they act like it's important than it is.

[Theowne]

Thank you for bringing this up, because God knows we haven't heard it a billion times already.

[xris]

Originally Posted by Benoit

From there, it's simple arithmetic. The first decade would be 1-10. The second decade would be 11-20. And so on, until we get 2001-2010.

That's all well and good if we wanted to discuss the "best of the 201st decade" but "best of the decade" simply means best of ten consecutive years. Since 2009 has just finished then it would mean "best of 2000 to 2009". If we were to wait 5 years and wanted to discuss the "best of the last decade" then it would include 2005 to 2014.

[Benoit]

But there's a reason people are doing "best of" polls now, and not in previous years. That's because they think a new decade has started. The 201st decade. Ask anyone.

It's just like when everyone celebrated the year 2000 because it was the start of a new millennium. The third millennium. But it actually started in 2001.

People like round numbers, but that doesn't make them right.

Originally Posted by Theowne

Thank you for bringing this up, because God knows we haven't heard it a billion times already.

Unfortunately, that didn't stop people from making a "favourite games of the decade" thread, which is how I got here in General.

[JRendell]

Over here in England we've got quite a few media programmes etc named 'Best of the Noughties', not 'Best of the Decade'.

It's pointless and crap media anyway, and, no disrespect, it's a pointless topic aswell.

Who actually cares if it's not the end of the decade. Would anything change, other than the material, if we started these programmes next year?

[RadiantBeam]

Does it really matter? Let the media do whatever they want. It's not like they've been completely accurate before.

[xris]

Originally Posted by Benoit

That's because they think a new decade has started. The 201st decade. Ask anyone.

It appears you can't even get your own logic right. I think what you meant to say here is "That's because they think a new decade has started. The 202nd decade. Ask anyone."

[james0246]

Originally Posted by Benoit

But there's a reason people are doing "best of" polls now, and not in previous years. That's because they think a new decade has started. The 201st decade. Ask anyone.

Your relentless, I will certainly give you that. Too bad, your topic of interest is so uninteresting to so many...

[Slice of Life]

The Gregorian calendar is a hack. Face it. We should just convert to Posix time. As self-respecting otaku we dwell in a cellar and are unaffected by seasons and sun postiion anyway.

[Tsuyoshi]

I'm with JRendell and RadiantBeam here. It's just a trivial technicality that can easily be ignored. By the end of the day, it won't affect anyone, including you. Like you said, it only becomes important if you let it be.

[Benoit]

Originally Posted by JRendell

Who actually cares if it's not the end of the decade.

A lot of people, it seems.

Would anything change, other than the material, if we started these programmes next year?

No, but the material is the important thing. If we did it next year, we wouldn't think about what happened in 2000, and we would count this year with it.

Does it really matter? Let the media do whatever they want. It's not like they've been completely accurate before.

If it was only the media, it wouldn't be a problem. But people themselves also get it wrong, partially thanks to the media, as the thread in the Games forum proved. To me, it shows a lack of critical thinking.

Originally Posted by xris

It appears you can't even get your own logic right. I think what you meant to say here is "That's because they think a new decade has started. The 202nd decade. Ask anyone."

I goofed, yeah, because I copied your "201st decade" without minding the context. No need to flame-bait.

Originally Posted by james0246

Your relentless, I will certainly give you that.

Actually, you can thank Solace for removing our posts on the topic and prompting me to make a thread here. I'd have left it alone after my second post, as I stated.

[RadiantBeam]

Does it matter if 2009 isn't the end of the decade? No, it doesn't. So I don't see what the big deal of it is. Let people have their fun. No need to ruin it with critical thinking.

[JRendell]

Originally Posted by Benoit

A lot of people, it seems.

Who? No-one in this topic certain does.

Originally Posted by Benoit

If it was only the media, it wouldn't be a problem. But people themselves also get it wrong, partially thanks to the media, as the thread in the Games forum proved.

Who made you Dictator? The media and other people can think/display what they want and people can make up their own mind.

Originally Posted by Benoit

To me, it shows a lack of critical thinking.

You mean, people don't agree with you.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by Benoit

Actually, you can thank Solace for removing our posts on the topic and prompting me to make a thread here. I'd have left it alone after my second post, as I stated.

You're welcome.

For the record, decades are arbitrary, just like our use of the Gregorian Calendar. We've used many calendars in the past, this one just happens to fit our needs for the time being. It's also not an accurate calendar, needing constant adjustments periodically and it even includes a built in "extra day" every four years so that it doesn't screw up entirely.

Beyond all that, the calendar is based off of Christianity. Year one is the first year Anno Domini, or the first in the "year of our Lord". B.C. of course refers to Before Christ. Keep in mind that we have no exact records of when Christ was born, so Anno Domini, or A.D., refers to an arbitrary date of the first of his 30 or so years of life (contrary to what many think A.D does not mean After Death).

So what comprises a decade then? A decade is a period of ten years. For easier divisions of time this means a decade is generally considered a period of time starting with a year ending in zero and up to a year starting in zero (so 0-9 is a decade, 10-19 is a decade, etc.). This does not preclude decades in other measurements. Best of a decade could refer to a decade of an artist, which would start when the artist produced music up to a period of 10 years. It could mean a decade of war, or famine. It could mean a period of births or deaths. It could mean weather phenomenon. A decade, like every other stamped section of existence, is just a measurement of time.

Time is relative (thank you Einstein) and is largely based on perception. It's primary function is to assist in organizing and structuring our lifestyles around segmented periods. For instance the Farmer's Almanac was (and is) used to predict the best times for handling crops. Sun Dials were used to measure the length of a day based on the Sun's shadow.

So to answer the ultimate question of "is the decade over?" Yes, it is. Not because of mathematics, but because 10 years have passed and the 0x years are over, so we are celebrating the introduction of the 1x years. This period will end when we start the year 202x.

That's logic enough for most people, even if you pull math out to tell them they are wrong. In the end, even the math is arbitrary because you can always find a new measurement of the passage of time. So best to not bother the busy minds of the average person with such trivialities.

[Zu Ra]

Well blame it on 2K BUG, as 2K is considered the beginning of the decade than 01 . But frankly sneakingly I dont give much thought to all this .

[Vexx]

yes, yes, we have someone pull this notion up about every, oh, ten years.

do you count from zero or one?

[Raiga]

People don't care about whether the number of years since 1 AD is exactly divisible by ten or not.

People care if there's a 1 in the tens place or not.

(well, most people, I should say)

Same thing with whether 2000 or 2001 was the start of the millennium. Yeah, technically it's 2001, but seeing the thousands place change to a 2 and the rest of the digits to zeroes is just so much more exciting.

[Takeru]

Originally Posted by Solace

Keep in mind that we have no exact records of when Christ was born,
so Anno Domini, or A.D., refers to an arbitrary date of the first of his 30 or so years of life
(contrary to what many think A.D does not mean After Death).

Since this topic doesn't seem to be going anywhere of importance anyway, I thought I might as
well elaborate on this point, since it further proves the inaccuracy of the Gregorian Calendar.


There's a scientist who has developed a star simulation program and believes that sometime in
June of the year 2 C.E. (A.D. if you wish), Venus and Jupiter aligned which would have caused a
very bright star in the night sky. So there is a high probability that (from the stories in the Bible)
was the time that Christ would have been born.


To be on topic, a "decade" refers to any ten-year span of time. Therefore there is no definitive
"Decade", be it 2000 - 2010, 2001 - 2011, 1 - 10, or 1457 - 1465.

Centuries, of course, are different. They are commonly determined through the change to the
first year of every 100 years (eg: 2001 was the beginning of the 21st Century).

[TooPurePureBoy]

That is ridiculous. That's like saying raging bull was one of the best movies of the 70's.....