

this, but also, while the number 0 to denote absence of something has been the norm for some time, counting from zero wasn’t much of a thing before the digital era
edit: more to support my theory, before the 1950s (the advent of computing) zero wasn’t really used as an ordinal at all
that’s true, but when you’re measuring something the value you get is a cardinal, not an ordinal. I agree that we have been using 0 as a cardinal for a long time. however, we’ve been using 0 as an ordinal only since 1950s
people think of time as a sequence of events, hence there’s 1st (1 o’clock), 2nd (2 o’clock) and so on until the 12th (12 o’clock)