Fascination with year-2000
Base 2000 2001
2 11111010000 11111010001
3 2202002 2202010
4 133100 133101
5 31000 31001
6 13132 13133
7 5555 5556
8 3720 3721
9 2662 2663
11 1559 155a
12 11a8 11a9
13 bab bac
14 a2c a2d
15 ad5 8d6
16 7d0 7d1
17 6fb 6fc
18 632 633
19 5a5 5a6
20 500 501
21 4b5 4b6
22 42k 421
23 3hm 3i0
24 3b8 3b9
25 350 351
26 2oo 2op
27 2k2 2k3
28 2fc 2fd
29 2ac 2b0
30 26k 26l
31 22g 22h
32 1ug 1uh
The fascination with the year 2000 as the end of a millennium, the year of the second coming, Armageddon, etc. (date-related bugs in non-Macintosh software notwithstanding) is more than just plain silly.

There is nothing special about the number 2000, as the table to the left shows. It happens to be a nice “round” number only in base-10, the one that most of humanity is accustomed with (presumably since most of us have 10 digits). In the binary (base-2) system, it is a pretty randomly looking number, as it also is in almost any other base. Shown here are the values up to base-32, that being a base for “binary” way of counting on the digits of one hand). For comparison, the third column shows the next integer, 2001, which is the first year of the third millennium. Personally, I like base-7 and base-13, and in both of these year-2000 has an interesting representation: 5555 and bab (the latter of which, in Hungarian, means “beans”).

Note also that the precision of knowing when this millennium ends crucially depends on knowing when it (and the previous one) began. And this, supposedly, should coincide with the birth date of Jesus of Nazareth. Which, however, is celebrated on the eve of December 24th, not 31st. Besides, some say, Jesus may have been born in 4 B.C., so that Armageddon must have happened four years ago. Oh, and of course, leap years were invented quite a while after that initial event - without which Armageddon ought to appear quite a few days sooner!

But, seriously: why should the instantaneous vanishing of the Universe (as we know it) be timed in revolutions of an insignificant planet around an insignificant star, and by a number that appears significant only in a handful of number systems? Now, isn't that quite  preposterously obnoxious?

Oh, and just by the way: in computer parlance, the suffix “k” denotes 1024-fold, not 1000-fold (since 1024=210). So, “Y2k”, in reference to computers, should really mean year-2048, shouldn't it?