Again on 0-based vs. 1-based indexing

Re:Again on 0-based vs. 1-based indexing by klik99 on Wednesday January 20, 2021 @09:20AM (#25846706)

When my korean friend first told me this, I honestly thought they were messing with me. I still struggle to make sense of it. Must be a helluva birthday party on Jan 1st tho

I know there are studies on how birth date affects future success in school (though IIRC I read in Gladwell, and I'm wary of accurate his read on things are), I wonder if that effect is compounded with this system?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Again on 0-based vs. 1-based indexing by naniwaduni on Wednesday January 20, 2021 @09:41AM (#25846947)

It's just a count of how many calendar years contain you.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Again on 0-based vs. 1-based indexing by ska on Wednesday January 20, 2021 @12:05PM (#25848847)

It's the difference between "I was born in 2010" and "I am about 10.3 years old".

Americans do this a lot too, except at a (pseudo) decade level, e.g. "are you a '90s kid?"

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Again on 0-based vs. 1-based indexing by cgriswald on Wednesday January 20, 2021 @01:29PM (#25850024)

> Americans do this a lot too, except at a (pseudo) decade level, e.g. "are you a '90s kid?"

This brings up other ambiguities. A "90's kid" might have been born in the 80's.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Again on 0-based vs. 1-based indexing by ska on Wednesday January 20, 2021 @03:35PM (#25851629)

Yes, it’s not a clean mapping

[ Parent | on HN ]