• amotio@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    41
    ·
    4 months ago

    That is a good point, but analog clocks are IMHO in the realm of sundial clocks or audio casettes or floppy discs. Technology that was once usefull, but now it’s replaced by better alternatives. Time is after all just a number, and it does not matter how we choose to represent it.

      • unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        It absolutely is tho. Usually more precise, 1:1 translatable into written text, can use the superior 24h system and uses the same reading system that is already taught in school anyways.

        • loaExMachina@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          “Ususally more precise” > This depends on how precisely it is set, not on the display. Unless it’s a connected watch, but then it’s much more expensive and less energy efficient.

          “1.1 translatable into written text” > Both are, you’re reading the same number

          “Uses the superior 24h system” > Adding 12 to a number isn’t complicated. And with habit, most people who use analog watches and the 24h system know which position of the needle means what number in 24h format without doing the math. Some clocks don’t even have digits. Unless you’ve been sedated and woke up in a room without windows, you’ll know which side of 12 you’re on. And otherwise, you’ve got more pressing issues.

          • RogueBanana@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            I was ready to hate it but after a good look, it doesn’t look that bad. Doesn’t work for small wristwatches but could look nice for a big wall clock.

      • TheSlad@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        4 months ago

        Wristwatches are just jewelry at this point tbh. They’ve been rendered completely redundant by cell phones. The only people under 60 who wear them are doing so as a fashion statement.

        I’m sure a lot of wristwatch stans will downvote me but I don’t care I’m still right

        • newfie@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          Wristwatches don’t have the negative psychologically addictive and anxiety-producing effects of smartphones

        • curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          For office attire or going out, sure.

          If you’re doing repair work, running lines, etc, a watch is the choice. Your hands are busy, so a watch is what you need (Except for specific trades where you don’t want to risk it getting caught in machinery).

          I can say with 100% certainty that I know large swaths of folks in their 20’s and 30’s who regularly wear watches. Some smart, some digital, some analog.

        • Kalysta@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          I use my wristwatch all the time to take dogs’ pulses.

          Having a cell phone next to a grumpy dog is asking for a broken cell phone. I’m sure people in other fields need wristwatches as well.

          Just because you don’t use them don’t mean they’re not useful.

        • flerp@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          I’m a watch nerd with a collection of mechanical watches and I’m not going to downvote you because you’re right. I wear them because I like them even though I know they are anachronistic. I can’t remember the last time I interacted with somebody significantly younger than me who was wearing a watch, and as I said, I’m a watch nerd, someone’s watch is one of the first things I notice about them.

          I will say that they are occasionally more convenient than other places I could check the time but I’ve built my life in such a way that I very rarely have to care about what time it is and I go weeks at a time without checking the time, just wearing them because I’m fascinated by tiny gears and springs doing their business and I like the feeling of it on my wrist.

    • Jrockwar@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Absolutely not comparable to floppy disks. The hands are a representation, not a technology. Technology-wise, most modern “analog” wristwatches are quartz, and therefore digital, not actually analog. Yet we choose to make them with hands because that provides a better representation of the passing of time.

      • flerp@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        Technology-wise, most modern “analog” wristwatches are quartz, and therefore digital, not actually analog.

        Wat… that’s not how that works. Quartz watches can be digital or analog but what matters is whether it has a digital display or analog hands.

    • DashboTreeFrog@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      As someone who struggled with analog clocks into my twenties, being able to see the hands move gives me a better sense of time passing and I remember reading stuff that supported that. I have a better sense how much time I have left for something looking at analog vs digital basically and it’s a fairly common experience apparently

    • andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      4 months ago

      Are they going anywhere, tho? They start cheap and are very energy-efficient, so I think they’d stay. If there is a probability to face them IRL it won’t be bad to learn how to read them.

    • Farid@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      It’s not better, it’s just different, your comparison is flawed.
      Personally, I prefer analog watches for most cases, because it’s much easier for me to do calculations visually. To add 6 to 7/19 on a digital clock I need to turn on my math brain (19+6=25, 25>24 => 25-24=1), but on an analog watch I can just visually read the number opposite of 7.

      And that’s just one example, there are other cases, besides just being easier to read at a glance. I’ve used both digital and analog watches since birth, but analog watches are marginally better for daily use, where to the second precision isn’t necessary.

    • Tomato666@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      I need reading glass (sigh I got old) With an analogue watch face I can work out the time, blurred lines can be seen. Cant read blurred numbers.

    • macniel@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      4 months ago

      Time isn’t just a number though. Especially not when it comes to clocks. And it’s also bound to Mass.