this post was submitted on 01 May 2025
1087 points (96.9% liked)
Comic Strips
16427 readers
1881 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
- The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
- The comic must be a complete story.
- If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
- You may post comics from others or your own.
- If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
- The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
- Politeness.
- Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.
Web of links
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world: "I use Arch btw"
- !memes@lemmy.world: memes (you don't say!)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Hey, I quite like this! You're the first person I've found that's thought of fixing the calendar by adopting six-day weeks. I have a very similar personal version, with two main differences:
I also came to the same conclusion about workweeks. With two-day weekends, the Gregorian calendar has 71 % of workdays but the new calendar only has 67 %. On a thirty-day month this means 20 workdays instead of 21,5. Having the six-day week could also theoretically allow for a move to three- or two-day weeks in a post-scarcity future and doing away with weekends, as well has having either 50 % or 67 % of the workforce being active every day of the week, and not the wild levels of fluctuation seen today. Not having 100 % commuting some days of the week and a fraction of that on others would allow to scale things like transport infrastructure much more effectively
How does that work, with the leap week? Doesn't the year drift out of alignment with the solar cycle?
Only in eight year chunks. By year seven there is more unalignment than there was in year one, but it goes back to normal on year eight. Same thing as with leap days, just a slightly bigger scale.
In fact, with current rules, the shift in the regular Gregorian calendar becomes quite big when considering 100-year and 400-year cycles. In theory, a leap week calendar with new and updated rules could have a very comparable if not a smaller average deviation from the true solar date, though I haven't ran the precise calculations
Ok, so, first, let me say that while I'm enthusiastic about the concept, I understand it's entirely theoretical. We can't even get US civilians to adopt metric, FFS. Just a caveat, lest anyone wander by and overhear us.
That said, I did spend some cycles trying to see it it would be possibly to line up a lunar and solar calendar, and it's not. And it isn't nearly as important as it used to be. It would still have been nice.
So if you do run calculations, I'd like to see them.
Here they are! Orange represents my Leapweek calendar and blue is Gregorian. The Y-axis is deviation from the tropical year and the X-axis is the year number. It's a 19200-year cycle to allow for both Gregorian and Leapweek to do entire iterations of their 400-year and 768-year cycles, respectively.
The Gregorian rules are, as you already know: if a year is divisible by 4, it is a leap year; unless it is divisible by 100, when it is a common year; unless it is also divisible by 400, in which case it is actually a leap year.
My Leapweek rules are: years divisible by 8, are leap (short, with 360 days instead of the usual 366) years, as are years divisible by 768 (after subtracting 4 so as not to clash with years divisible by 8). Just two rules as opposed to Gregorian's three, but they result in almost perfect correction: it takes 625 000 years to fall out of sync by 1 day, as opposed to Gregorian's 3 216 years for the same amount)
The catch is that Leapweek falls out of sync by up to 5½ days either way in between 768-year cycles, and up to 2½ days either way in between 8-year cycles. But they average out.
About the lunisolar I'm afraid to say that I ran into the same issue. Lunations are a very inconvenient duration to try and fit into neat solar days and months.
I wish it weren't as theoretical, because I really like this calendar, but yea. It's one of those things that will be impossible to change even though there's arguably better options. It's too arbitrary yet too essential and it goes in the same box as the metric second/minute/hour, the dozenal system and the Holocene calendar.
Here's a challenge though: try and devise a Martian calendar! That one is not standardised yet. I had good fun trying to match the Martian sol and year to metric units of time and maybe giving some serious use to the kilosecond, megasecond and gigasecond
As an extra, here's a 1000-year version of the graph at the start of the reply, with the current year 12 025 of the Holocene calendar :^) in the middle