• rockSlayer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    It’s accounted for just like any other leap year, add it to the end of a month as a universal holiday. Most calendar models make it July 29. It’s also worth noting that this is actually 364 days, and a single day at the end of the year is a universal holiday.

    Edit: I think leap years should be at the end of the year too for simplicity.

    • Flipper@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      7 months ago

      That would just be new year. I’ve already have a list ready for how to name all the months, so we don’t fuck it up like September being the 9. Month again.

    • lugal@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Which breaks “day of week = day modulo 7” if every month starts on Monday and not every month has the same number of days

      • ElderWendigo@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        7 months ago

        In this scheme, new years day and leap days are not any day of the week or part of any month. They exist outside of the regular calendar as obvious and explicit resets to the remainder problem.

        • lugal@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          7 months ago

          My point exactly. So the programmer who commented above me is wrong in saying it makes it easier for them

          • ElderWendigo@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            No, still easier. They are still part of the year, so you can just count them, and the logic is still easier than the mess we currently have. If you really feel the need to you can call new years day the zeroth day in the zeroth month, the day of the week is Holiday, and periodically the zeroth month has one extra Holiday.

            • lugal@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              Computers store the date as “days after January 1st 1970”. So you have a huge number, divide it with 7 and get the day of the week. If there are days that don’t belong to any week, you have to calculate January 1st of that year and substrate it in addition to the steps above. I don’t say it’s not manageable, but it’s not easier

              • ElderWendigo@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                7 months ago

                They store the number of seconds since the epoch of 1970, but you’re always going to have leap days and even leap seconds. Even if you changed the definition of a second to match the current length of a year, it would be off again relatively soon and you’d need leap seconds again. It’s NEVER going to be as simple as you seem to think it should be. Chaos and complexity is inherent in the whole system.

                • lugal@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  I never said it was simple. The comment above me was “oh, this makes it much easier” and I was like “it’s not really getting easier”. That’s all I said.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        7 months ago

        Look, short of changing Earth’s orbit, something’s not gonna line up no matter what you do. Extra-weekly days are as good a compromise as any in my book.

        • lugal@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          My point exactly. So the programmer who commented above me is wrong in saying it makes it easier for them