From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (minnie.tuhs.org [50.116.15.146]) by inbox.vuxu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 807BD275E1 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2024 23:21:23 +0200 (CEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 971764369E; Wed, 17 Jul 2024 07:21:18 +1000 (AEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tuhs.org; s=dkim; t=1721164878; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:list-id:list-help: list-owner:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-post; bh=0EtxrojjbSJz68CZbJwMglnHzExTEWvasJdfgsq+leM=; b=ebBsrMpI3eFzxqI8SvDmux6poCbFlNwqdDMt0IdROrUSvrp9H26Y1ZaXKn1ynF8ltEdiPo iJ16duHKiuUL90NF9RBmYXvBWhkRU4o11mb344gIPx0bpZN+lCNPXcMa70SnkUkn9oAsOv +wxCqHXSpH91EkxtgIHI9tMiiBAwY2s= Received: from mail-43167.protonmail.ch (mail-43167.protonmail.ch [185.70.43.167]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 18CA74369D for ; Wed, 17 Jul 2024 07:21:09 +1000 (AEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=protonmail3; t=1721164866; x=1721424066; bh=0EtxrojjbSJz68CZbJwMglnHzExTEWvasJdfgsq+leM=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID: Message-ID:BIMI-Selector; b=orLRle1G8zQzVM9t3dxo2g0qhaCbuQJE5Pf5M09KKZJr2DfuTLa3SBI6sqjeLnYkR z/3OO3qYDBzyOB0tUNY9y40RLGGT6WqYJl3uImFiOw/3tMwZCmu/z4VFRN2v8Pb86R iVgzu+Wgt0UdVMoONxAFG9TAyiEBwhPmJ7j3lR8G7wxJwVi/dJKugdxnYEvEqnMEcu wJehWlpOSuoRp/O1GYXecdYqk68LBwokins247iyZwyw7c4lImvrT/q6vzEHv018NM eoFiBB37YMGj9hhSRt4gVS2OfsGx0mCYGtUHWO1gA4Doayw+yWecqnfdg4PYhbduDY 1YPtpV1plWmkw== Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2024 21:21:00 +0000 To: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20240716202214.oppWyEEQ@steffen%sdaoden.eu> References: <1sTc9e-0hh-00@marmaro.de> <20240716202214.oppWyEEQ@steffen%sdaoden.eu> Feedback-ID: 35591162:user:proton X-Pm-Message-ID: 008d11a74cf2b819633563893fe5def5073da488 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID-Hash: Q7BXWP3ZI4WGWU3MQCGBDWOZUGOS7MBP X-Message-ID-Hash: Q7BXWP3ZI4WGWU3MQCGBDWOZUGOS7MBP X-MailFrom: segaloco@protonmail.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-tuhs.tuhs.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.6b1 Precedence: list Subject: [TUHS] Re: When did "man cal" lose the comment about 1752? List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: From: segaloco via TUHS Reply-To: segaloco On Tuesday, July 16th, 2024 at 1:22 PM, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote: > markus schnalke wrote in > 1sTc9e-0hh-00@marmaro.de: >=20 > |[2024-07-15 15:52] Douglas McIlroy douglas.mcilroy@dartmouth.edu >=20 > |> >=20 > |>> Yeah, but if you do that you have to treat the places >=20 > |>> acquired in the Louisiana Purchase differently because >=20 > |>> they switched in 1582. And Puerto Rico. Bleh. >=20 > |> >=20 > |> Then there are all the German city states. And the >=20 > |> shifting borders of Poland. (cal -s country) is a mighty >=20 > |> low-res "solution" to the Julian/Gregorian problem. >=20 > | > |Several of these small entities, adopting the Gregorian calendar at > |different times, you can see in this lenghty list: > | https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorianischer_Kalender#=C3=9Cbernahme_d= e\\ > | s_gregorianischen_Kalenders > |(in German) >=20 > But mostly is Katholischer Teil (Corpus Catholicorum) early (a > year late) / Evangelischer Teil (Corpus Evangelicorum) of the > Heiliges R=C3=B6misches Reich (holy roman empire) sp=C3=A4ter (18.2. -> >=20 > 1.3.1700). I would say, dependent on where you are, saying goes > for the former or the latter to this very day. Aka i think > i recall that posted to a similar thread in the past, quoting an > article from the german computer magazine c't 15/1997, back from > when i still gave (lots of diversely spread) money to german > journalists; that i just pasted documentation comments, and that > included (it included Gaius Julius Caesar back then i think) >=20 > * Whereas (parts of \ldots) Germany, for example, adopted it in 1700 (i t= hink), > * Great Britain did so in 1752; > * many countries adopted it in between 1912 and 1974, on the other hand. >=20 > and >=20 > * Furthermore, DateTime describes itself as a set of date algorithms, > * which are influenced by Timezone (and sometimes Locale) objects. > * This implies that we don't know much of the country or region; > * the timezone "Europe/Berlin", for example, > * applies to all of Germany \e today, > * which cannot be compared to the bunch of principalities which existed i= n the > * year 1700! >=20 > Now again, what a pity. >=20 > I think it is remarkable as traditionally we kept it "holding on > the inside", ie working ourselves out with all the little states, > borders, taxes, etc., with a little bit of swinging and such > dependent on "good king / bad king" time passages. Except for > maybe the crusades (though good kings died before reaching the > holy land imho), but even those came to an end at times. Bring > the boys back home! (Which rhymes to bring the boys' backbone, in > respect to the "traditional german burial" Mos Teutonicus. Hihi.) >=20 > --steffen > | > |Der Kragenbaer, The moon bear, > |der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one > |einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off > |(By Robert Gernhardt) Well and I would have to wonder how much the average person at the time was= really tuned in with the calendars, years, etc. The church with their met= iculous record keeping would've cared, as well as scientific circles (whose= lines with the church were much blurrier then), but your average peasant i= n the field probably didn't care one way or another, so it seems like adopt= ion of calendars at the time would've had a lot more to do with political/r= eligious affiliation than any amount of impact on the life of an average su= bject. All that to say, unlike today's modern interconnected global community, bac= k then it was probably fine to drag your feet on moving to some new calenda= r because most folks weren't looking that granularly at the calendar, they = were looking at the sun, moon, and stars. Of course I wasn't there, so thi= s is all postulation, and certainly adrift from the original question so I'= ll resist further musings on German calendar adoption. To tie it back, has anyone experience with cal(1) being retooled for non-we= stern calendars, and if so, if similar problems have arisen? One country I= could see being troublesome to target cal(1) for is Japan, their tradition= al concept of a year consists of two values, one being which emperor was on= the throne and the other being the number of years since the ascension. I= n conventional date writing, they tend to only write the latter, mentioning= the empire in the greater context to give a point of reference sure, but a= s a pointed example, the date stamps in the headers of several Japanese vid= eo games published in the 80s instead have a year in the 60s because it was= 60 or so years after the ascension of Hirohito marking the Showa period. - Matt G.