I would dispute that. The Julian-Gregorian calendar is a fusion of custom, astronomy and mathematics.
Considered as a piece of applied technology, what other piece of complex technology do we use on a daily basis that was invented 2,000 years ago, tweaked slightly over four centuries ago, and works perfectly well?
Not to mention that the Julian-Gregorian calendar has been widely adopted and these days most nations of the world have adopted it as a civil calendar.. (Other calendars are usually around for religious purposes) Even if it’s not perfect it works well enough.
It’s annual. Originally, we were paid monthly. Then the province passed a law outlawing any employer holding the pay for more than half a month and they went to twice a month, fine, then every two weeks, a damned nuisance since nearly all my bills are monthly and one month in every quarter will have three paydays.
That was my understanding as well, but according to the Wikipedia article on the calendar, it dates back to an incorrect analysis by a guy named Sacrobosco in the 13th century:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_calendar#Sacrobosco’s_incorrect_theory_on_month_lengths
The Julian reform set the lengths of the months to their modern values. However, there is a different explanation for the lengths of Julian months, which is usually attributed to the 13th century scholar Sacrobosco,[33] but also attested in 12th century works,[34] and is still widely repeated but is certainly wrong.
HUH? HUH?
This boggles my mind.
Who programmed that, and why?
What advantage does this bring to the human race?
Naw…why use all these complicated words derived from gods?
The simplest names come from the Hebrew language:
One-day (= Sunday)
Two-day (= Monday)
Three-day(=Tuesday)
Four-day (=Wednesday)
Five-day (=Thursday)
Six-day. (=Friday)
This results in a humorous situation when teaching Hebrew: When you ask students what day it is, you watch the whole class counting on their fingers .Especially funny when it’s a class of adults.
Presumably, 4:00 am is the time at which no, or next-to-no, transit services are actually running. It represents a kind of functional midnight, the point at which one cycle of operations has been completed and the next has yet to begin.
Note that it’s said to be used internally. Using it simplifies the transit system’s operational thinking and calculations, but the travellin public never has to get to grips with it.
It probably also means that if you board (say) a bus at 1900 and buy a ‘day return’ ticket, you can use it to get the last bus home at 0200 that night. If their ‘day-keeping’ system went from 0000 to 2359, you wouldn’t be able to do that.
A lot of software bugs have to do with such calendar issues. At at this point, the vast majority have been fixed.
This proposal would cost businesses and governments more than Y2K did, and the emergency changes for what was missed would take longer.
It would have been a better idea in 1950, although, even then, implementation would have been expensive.
How do the extra 3 hours and 59 minutes work?
Logically there are two ways to do all that. They’re functionally equivalent but have different pain points.
Set the “time zone” of the internal system clock to be 4 hours earlier than local reality. And run your internal systems, and things like all-day passes, on a midnight-to-midnight internal time basis. Just convert that internal time to local time by subtracting 4 hours whenever you display it to the public. This is effectively what the aviation industry and worldwide ATC does; UTC/GMT is used internally for everything, but times are converted to local whenever shown to laypeople.
Have your internal timekeeping synced to local time, but simply let the hours and minutes keep ticking past 2359 all the way to 2759. Then they roll over not to 0000 but to 0400. The “day” is still 24 hours long, each minute just has a different label than laypeople expect. You’d still need to tweak how you display the 2400-2759 time to laypeople.
My bet is they really use my first method. But it can be explained in terms of its functional consequences using the second method as a gloss.