By that logic 2000 is the last year of the second millennium, 2001 is the first year of the third millennium, 2002 the second, and 2003 the third.

The era started at year 1, and not year 0. So the new millenniums starts at years that ends with 1.

It’s also the third millennium of the era. 1-1000 AD was the first, 1001-2000 AD was the second, and we are now in the third.

That is what the culture war is. The effort to create an environment where publishers and artists have a harder time including aspects labeled “woke” because of a loud minority will harass the people involved, review bomb the products, dominate the discourse with bad faith arguments, and generally minimize the potential enjoyment of anyone who is the intended audience. This is what forcing an agenda upon artists looks like.

And when the artists chooses to include all genders, or races, or trans people; what would you call the effort to force the artists from removing this from their art?

As you pointed out previously, nobody uses decimeters, so x10 errors are not that common.

I find it weird that when measuring height in metric, people using cm exclusively, i’ve noticed this a lot actually, people will use cm or mm in places where it arguably doesn’t make any sense. I could see the justification for doing math maybe, but like, that defeats the whole point of it being metric no?

Why is that defeating the whole point of being metric? If you know someone is 183 cm tall, you also know that they are 1.83 m tall. If its easier to say the length in cm, you do. No need for “one meter and eighty-three centimeters” or “one point eighty-three meters”, just “a hundred and eighty-three centimeters”. Often you just skip saying the “centimeters” part as well, because most people can see that you’re not the size of a skyscraper without getting a ruler out.

Sure, and a window on the fifth floor is technically an exit. But that doesn’t make it a viable option.

My assumption was that a temperature scale for the human experience would place the ideal temperature around the middle, and not towards too hot. Would it improve such a scale if the 0 F was closer where 20 or 30 is currently, so that 70-80 is more centered? Is 0 F the perfect point for where it’s unacceptably cold for a human, or could it have been shifted up or down the scale?

If 0 F is 0 % hot, and 100 F is 100 % hot; shouldn’t 50 F be the Goldilocks ideal of neither too hot or too cold at 50 %?

And if 50 F isn’t the Goldilocks ideal, then where on the scale is it?

So 50 F is the ideal temperature?