Last person born in the 19th century dies

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Perhaps life expectancy will continue to rise and if it rises at an increased rate we may have hope of longevity escape velocity which means that if life expectancy increases at a faster rate than the rate at which people age, it will be possible to extend life thousands of years.
Whether this is possible in the 21st century remains to be seen. Currently when someone reaches the age of 100, living to 110 is very rare.

While average life expectancy has been rising, maximum lifespan has been basically holding steady.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If she was born in 1900, then technically she was born in the 20th century.  I know Wikipedia has the centuries beginning in the '01 year rather than the '00 year, and I think that's a bunch of nonsense.  The last person born in the 19th century was Emma Morano, an Italian woman who died just over a year ago: https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/16/europe/emma-morano-oldest-person-dies-trnd/index.html

There is no year 0 in the calendar.  Traditionally we give the 1st century AD (and BC) a full 100 years, the same as any other rather than short-changing them a year each (or even worse, making the 1st century BC be from 101 BC to 2 BC because 1 BC is part of the 1st century AD.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If she was born in 1900, then technically she was born in the 20th century.  I know Wikipedia has the centuries beginning in the '01 year rather than the '00 year, and I think that's a bunch of nonsense.  The last person born in the 19th century was Emma Morano, an Italian woman who died just over a year ago: https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/16/europe/emma-morano-oldest-person-dies-trnd/index.html

There is no year 0 in the calendar.  Traditionally we give the 1st century AD (and BC) a full 100 years, the same as any other rather than short-changing them a year each (or even worse, making the 1st century BC be from 101 BC to 2 BC because 1 BC is part of the 1st century AD.

Yes, I know that, but it still makes more sense to end the 19th century at 1899 since 1900 is when the hundreds digit changes from 8 to 9 (same goes for 1700, 1800, 2000, and so forth).  IMO, it's better to make 1 BC the first year of the first century than to shortchange every other century of years that rightfully belong to them, simply for the sake of the first.

I don't see why the 1900's need to appropriate the name of the 20th century. For me it makes more sense that the Xth century includes the year X00. Arguably the 1900's could be called the 19th century except no one does that and words need to be shared to be useful.