What are your plans for the exact middlepoint of the decade?

Well remembered, familia. Gotta think of something now.

>>82195580
Its a good point to renew any decade resolutions.

>>82195030 (OP)
>middle point
>2026
>6
This board never ceases to amaze

>>82195597
I don't do that. me resolutions work by the second

>>82195629
There is no 0 AD in the Gregorian calendar. It begins on 1 AD. Decades, centuries and millennia begin on years ending in 1 and end on years ending in 0.

Fucking idiot.

>>82195700
2000 was totally part of the 90s guise. My god. I'm from the 80s I was born in 1990 lmao. Try harder man.

>>82195725
The 90s is a complete arbitrary grouping of 10 years that doesnt conform to the calendar its part of at all.

Do you understand the concept of a decade? Its 10 years. A century? Its 100 years. A millennium? 1000.

So if the Gregorian calendar begins on 1 AD (which it objectively does), then what is the first decade, champ? What is the first century? What is the first millennium?

You are too stupid to fucking deserve breath.

>>82195788
>the 90s isn't a decade
Dude what. Alright I guess the current decade can just be from 2025 to 2035 then lmao.

>>82195725
It was, quite literally, the final year of the 1991-2000 decade (or 200th decade). The final year of the 20th century (1901-2000). And the final year of the second millennium (1001-2000).

Are you denying any of this? Do you not understand basic arithmetic?

>>82195814
So if someone was born in 1990 you think they're from the 80s? How does that make any sense at all?

>>82195811
Thats literally what youre doing with the 90s.

If the calendar begins on 1 AD. WHAT IS THE FIRST FUCKING DECADE, AND WHEN DOES THE SECOND DECADE BEGIN YOU FUCKING IMBECILE SPASTIC???

It is, quite obviously, 1-10 AD. Second decade beginning on 11 AD and ending on 20 AD. And so on and so forth.

What are you not getting about this?

>>82195832
The 80s is a completely irrelevant and arbitrary grouping of 10 years that does not conform to the calendar it is a part of whatsoever. See >>82195700
>>82195788
>>82195814
>>82195839

I have explained this all to you in incredibly simple terms.

>>82195832
Someone born in 1990 was born in the final year of the 199th decade. This is real simple, pal.

>>82195839
The first decade was just shorter? Why is this so hard for YOU? It makes no sense to say that someone born in 1990 is from the 80s.
>>82195852
If the 80s is so arbitrary then why does everyone talk about 80s this or 90s that?

>>82195869
The first decade was just shorter? So it wasnt a decade then? And you are effectively doing exactly this >>82195811

You are completely and utterly mentally retarded.

>The first decade was just 5 years. Decades begin on years ending in 6 and end on years ending in 5!!! HUURRRRE xD

>>82195869
Same reason people also consider 2000 to have been the beginning of the new millennium and century. Do you agree with this? Are you consistently retarded and incapable of understanding how the calendar you are using is structured?

Anyway Im glad you can acknowledge you are a fucking idiot who simply groups years together in a completely arbitrary way because other retards do it.

Great stuff. Next time do basic research about topics before attempting to correct anyone over anything. Retard.

>>82195890
Decades are from 0 to 9 and the middle of that is 5 because 0 to 9 is 10 numbers, divided 2 is 5. The math is not hard here.

>>82195918
Decades are not from 0 to 9 in the Gregorian calendar because it begins on 1 AD you fucking MORON. Just like with centuries and millennia.

What day does January begin on, btw? What number does January, the month, begin on?

>>82195918
>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_zero

Here. I am done arguing with you, you fucking simpleton.

>>82195941
Months aren't decades though? There's no month 0 but there are years like 2020.
>>82195954
>Programming libraries may implement a year zero, an example being the Perl CPAN module DateTime
Might be a miscommunication because I am a programmer

>>82195989
Months begin on 1, just as decades do though, IN THE GREGORIAN CALENDAR WHICH YOU ARE REFERENCING AND USING.

IT BEGINS ON 1 AD. YOU FUCKING ACKNOWLEDGE THIS AND THEN JUST SHORTEN THE FIRST DECADE TO ACCOUNT FOR YOUR ARBITRARY GROUPING OF YEARS. Right? You just did this a few comments ago.

It is the exact same thing as someone just claiming the first decade was only 8 years and grouping decades from years ending in 3.

WHY ARE YOU SO FUCKING STUPID???

>>82195989
>Theres no month 0 but there are years like 2020.
Theres no Year 0 either. There are months like 10 and days of months like 20.

Ergo you understand your entire position has fallen apart several comments ago.

>>82195989
It doesnt matter what programming languages implement. The calendar itself begins on 1 AD. Until that changes, if it ever changes, decades begin on years ending in 1 and end on years ending in 0. Same with centuries and millennia.

Thats just a mathematical reality.

>>82195989
Alternately, TIME begins at 00:00:00. So time DOES count from 0. I am not arguing that the day begins at 01:01:01. Because that isnt how we currently count time. We count time from 0.

But the calendar counts from 1. For years. For decades. For centuries. For millennia.

>>82195788
>So if the Gregorian calendar begins on 1 AD (which it objectively does)
That's only the case because there is no year 0 even though there rationally should be. Retards made a mistake two millennia ago and it's still having rippling effects on other retards, making them think counters start at 1 rather than 0.

>>82196084
Not just time, literally anything being counted starts at 0.
"Can I have a slice of pizza?"
"No you already had two."
"What do you mean, I only had 1?"
"No, some idiot on the Internet says you have to start at 1. So you had 1 slice already and now you've had 2."

>>82196021
You just have a problem with abstract thinking. You're kind of a retard. Probably can't picture a photorealistic apple in your mind.

>>82196125
Right, but the fact remains that there isnt. It begins on 1 AD. Regardless of reasoning or what SHOULD be the case. Campaign for calendrical reform by all means, if it means that much to you. Hell, even use a different calendar that DOES begin on 0 like the Holocene calendar or whatever.

But the Gregorian calendar begins on 1 AD.

>>82196125
Do you also think there should be a January 0? And that January should be 0 month?

Surely if you want to consistently and exclusively count from 0, the answer should be yes, no?

>>82196137
No it doesnt. We already discussed months and days of months. They start at 1 too. In fact quite a lot of things count from 1. Counting from 0 is a fairly new thing since for most of English existence there was no 0 or even the concept of 0. It was just nothing. And there was no representation for it.

If you start a new goal. Do you call it Day 1 or Day 0? Do you start at Level 0 or Level 1?

Its not as cut and dry as you seem to think.

>>82196175
You just dont understand how the calendar you are using is structured, or you refuse to accept it is structured thusly. Either way, its your problem, not mine.
Im just informing you of the color of the sky.
Dont try to correct someone when you dont even have basic knowledge of the subject you are discussing next time.

>>82196137
You ate Slice 1. So you had 1 slice. There no such thing as Slice 0, because 0 is nothing. 0 is absence. You cannot have 0 slices of pizza. Because that is nothing. You pick up a slice and that is Slice 1, which you eat and then it is lapsed and you have eaten one slice.