Yeah… I really didn’t want to be Nostradamus when I took the picture, and yet with Via, I knew it would soon turn out to be too good to be true.
That being said, I look towards the day where such a departure board (in terms on on-time status) will stop being an utopia. 
Cette explication, ça me ramène au temps où j’étudiais l’informatique au Cégep. 9, c’est le 10e chiffre. C’est vraiment un joli paradoxe.
ma première reaction c’était d’aller sur LinkedIn et lui demander si on pourrait maintenant amener nos vélos à bord, mais un certain “Jacques Nacouzi” m’a battu 
Soyons plusieurs à le demander!!
And now you know why the millennium began January 1, 2001.
Actually it’s the opposite of what you’re saying. If centuries were 0-indexed the millenium would have started in 2000.
SameGuy is actually correct. We celebrated the new millenium one year ahead off schedule. Year 0 does not exist on the calendar. That means that year 2000 is the last year of the 20th century.
Hence the calendar is not 0-indexed.
En informatique (selon le système), mais en calendaire 9 est le 9e chiffre.
Ceci-dit, je me demande pourquoi les trains sont 0-indexés.
Because we love going off topic here: there was no year zero, so 2000 was the 2000th year, the next thousand years – or new millennium – began with 2001. It’s not math, it’s semantics.
And Jesus was born on year 1, so he was 33 years-old on year 34.
Credit where credit is due, yesterday I took a two leg via trip and only arrived 10 minutes late from the CN speed restrictions. It was the closest to “on time” train trip I’ve had since moving to Montreal 2 years ago.
Jesus was probably born on year 5 or 7 before himself ! And died on year 30 or 33, so he was about 35-40 years old in fact ! The whole year numbering was wrong in its attempt to fix the year 1, since it was calculated in the 6th century !
Final intervention because we’re talking past each other: You’re proving my point: there is no year 0, therefore there is no 0 in the Gregorian calendar. It’s 1-indexed.
The same way that if there were no train “0” in VIA (still wondering why, is it a standard in the industry to start at 0?), it would be 1-indexed.
Final intervention because we’re talking past each other: it’s not math, it’s semantics. By definition a millennium has 1000 years. If the calendar is “1-indexed,” the year 1000 is the 1000th year, and part of the first millennium; the year 2000 is the second “1000th year,” and part of the second millennium. 2001 is the first year of the third millennium.
ETA: I get what you’re saying, but there is nothing to prove. I was pointing out that we know how to count. Whether an object is zero-indexed or one-indexed is moot.
after reading all this discussion, I feel younger. Much appreciated!
Mais bien sûr ! En plus, il n’a même pas tenu compte du passage du calendrier julien au grégorien ! Le 25 décembre julien correspond au 7 janvier grégorien ! Quoiqu’à l’an 1 ou -1 (parce qu’il n’y a pas d’an 0 dans aucun des 2 calendriers), l’écart serait moins important.
Mais peu importe, c’est Denys le Petit, au début du 6e siècle, qui a fixé la naissance de Jésus : le 25 décembre de l’an 1 !
If only it was anywhere near that simple. There are multiple inaccuracies in both Calendars until we get to modern time where time keeping became much more of a science. If you spend even 10 minutes digging into the subject, you’ll find out that this is one of those subject that requires a lot of time to understand, pardon the pun.
Just ask any programmer who’s ever implemented a datetime library. If there’s one field where you should never reinvent the wheel, it’s time and date calculations.
