https://xkcd.com/2897

Alt text:

When Pope Gregory XIII briefly shortened the light-year in 1582, it led to navigational chaos and the loss of several Papal starships.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      103 months ago

      No, years divisible by 100 aren’t leap years, except if they’re also divisible by 400.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      63 months ago

      Interestingly, Wikipedia says they actually did base it on 365.25 instead of the actual 365.2425, so you’re technically right.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        23 months ago

        I don’t think that is what Wikipedia says. Whatever one’s thoughts on Wikipedia, I’m pretty sure it is getting this right.

        365.25 is what you get if you have leap years every four years with no exceptions. This is what was done in the Julian calendar which was used in the Christian world some centuries ago (how long exactly depends on what part of the Christian world).

        365.2425 is the average year length in the Gregorian calendar which we use (where leap years are 1592, 1596, 1600, 1604, 1608, … 1692, 1696, 1704, 1708, …, 1792, 1796, 1704, 1708, …, 1892, 1896, 1904, 1908, … 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, …, 2092, 2096, 2104, 2108, …).

        The actual average solar year is better approximated by the latter than the former, but it is still slightly off.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          13 months ago

          This seems pretty definitive to me:

          As defined by the International Astronomical Union (IAU), the light-year is the product of the Julian year (365.25 days, as opposed to the 365.2425-day Gregorian year or the 365.24219-day Tropical year that both approximate) and the speed of light (299792458 m/s).

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            13 months ago

            That is pretty much what I said. I was irritated by your wording “the actual 365.2425”, which is just another approximation of the “actual” solar year.

    • BarqsHasBite
      link
      fedilink
      English
      5
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      They skip leap years every now and then. And then skip the skip. Etc. The rotation of the earth around the sun and the spin of the earth on its axis simply don’t line up into a nice number.

      • EtzBetz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        13 months ago

        Oh okay. Yeah I only have that rule of “every 4 years” in my head. I did some other programming exercise way back where we had some other rule, but I was thinking that it would end up being the same.

    • @psud
      link
      English
      3
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      You’d be imprecise for civil timekeeping, but spot on for astronomy

      The civil rule is it’s a leap year if the year is divisible by 4, unless it is also divisible by 100 unless it is also divisible by 400

      We saw the rules play out in 2000 (at least those of us over 23 saw it) which is a year divisible by 100 and by 400 so it was a leap year

      Yours (and astronomy’s) is Julian style “if it’s divisible by 4”

      I prefer the newer calendars, where there is no good mental calculation for leap years - it’s a leap year when the computer says it’s a leap year

      • @IHawkMike
        link
        English
        13 months ago

        I almost certainly won’t be alive for it, but it’s funny to think about how confused people are going to be when 2100 isn’t a leap year.