Good Ol'times)))

What bug? Nothing happened

They weren't one year early. 2000 was the start of the millennium. A century was to begin with the 0 and end with the 99 which made sense because you had every year in between with the same number, 100 to 199 or 1200 to 1299 for example which equals a hundred years. Somewhere down the line into our current century, some idiots complained how there was no year 0 in the first century so this caused every turning point of the centuries to deconstruct. As a result, every century after the first one starting with a hundred, 00, was now tacked onto the previous century which is a load of bullocks. I mean, no one was going into 2000 still claiming it was the 1990s as much as no one was going into any other decade with a new number claiming it was still the last decade because by the whole 2001 logic that means every decade starts with the number 1 and ends with the new number change rather than AT it if we were to start with zero. 0 is the initial starting point to things and makes sense in cases like the years. Thats like saying when it comes to regular numbering 10 is associated with the 1 to 9 batch, if we were to start with 1, instead of the numbers following that have 1 at the start and so on with 20, 30, etc. Ages, no one is turning twenty, thirty, or forty, still saying they're in their teens, twenties or thirties. You can't have an era of the 1920s called THE NINETEEN TWENTIES if the actual 1920 debut that the entire damn thing is named after is not associated with it but instead counted as a member of the 1910s. You might as well call it the NINETEEN TWENTY ONES then if you want to get funny with the zero. So you have this obvious turning point year of 2000, clearly meant to be the start of a new era, decade, century, and millennium since we have a NEW number here, not only still a member of the 1000s millennium when it clearly does not fit it at all. Heck no.