• loaExMachina@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    58
    ·
    7 months ago

    I know someone said more or less the same thing when it was posted on Tumblr, but if the schools realize most of their students don’t know a thing they should know… Shouldn’t they teach it?

    • The Quuuuuill@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      7 months ago

      its not in their standardized tests and that’s the only thing that determines funding. Its a nightmare …

      • Lemming421@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Apparently it’s literally in the standardised tests… that’s what’s causing the problems! 😉

    • leisesprecher@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      7 months ago

      Honestly, how often do you read analog clocks?

      I mean, I learned it as a child, but it’s been probably months since I actually had the need to read an analog clock, and I’m just not used to it anymore. I have to think about it, 20 years ago it was just my spine doing the thinking and it felt effortless.

      • loaExMachina@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        7 months ago

        A lot, since I have an analog wristwatch and a wall clock. There were also analog clocks in several of the exam rooms where I last had exams.

        I guess many people don’t use them regularly, but regardless, the simple fact that they still exist is enough to be worth learning about them. Not everything you learn at school is meant to be used every single day.

      • ramble81@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        Every day? I use an analog watch face on my smartwatch, I have an analog clock in my car, I have another couple at home….

        • leisesprecher@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          So what? I don’t.

          I don’t have a smart watch and hardly anybody I know actually owns some analog clock?

          Take a look around you. Where are any analog clocks? Church towers, train stations, old people. That’s pretty much it. Your smartwatch is a choice. You could just as well use a digital watch face. There is literally no benefit in that case - except your personal preference.

          • ramble81@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            You literally asked “Honestly, how often do you read analog clocks?” and I answered. And then you say “So what?” So why did you even ask if you were gonna turn around and belittle answers?

      • Cheradenine@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        It’s not just about telling time though. It’s about representing things in a different way. Correlating one thing to another, and making someone think until the representation automatically becomes the output. You are forced to see things in a different way, which is what learnding is all about.

    • amotio@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      7 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
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          7 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
            3
            ·
            7 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.

          • r00ty@kbin.life
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            Right! Just to prove a point, I am going to make an NTP enabled rolex, and sync it to my microsecond accurate local NTP server! :P

              • r00ty@kbin.life
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                7 months ago

                Yeah, but you need to factor in the distance to the transmitter. Going to add at least a few microseconds to your time accuracy!

                  • r00ty@kbin.life
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    7 months ago

                    Sync process? The other comment was talking about the old receivers for the atomic clocks on SW/MW frequencies. It was a one way thing.

                    Now in theory if a receiver also had GPS they could account for the distance. But, then they’d get far more accurate time from the GPS receiver so…

        • TheSlad@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          7 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

          • The Quuuuuill@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            7 months ago

            Ever since college I’ve always worn a cheap watch on my wrist least for the same reason my grandpa stopped keeping a pocket watch: its more convenient to check on your wrist for the time than your pocket.

            Granted we’re getting way off topic here since except for a few years its ways been a digital watch. Asserting analog watches are more numerous in models when digital watches are more numerous in sales, therefore reading an analog clock is a useful skill is odd to me. When I was wearing an analog watch for my allergies it was a flieger because the mental tax of making the hands turn into a singular time was a frustration.

            I learned, though, from this that how you present time changes how you perceive time. Kids who grow up with digital representations of time consider “the current moment” in a much narrower and instantaneous scope than people who grew up thinking of time as being a spectrum on a dial

          • variants@possumpat.io
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            7 months ago

            Watches are just more convenient. You don’t need to carry a phone everywhere and with texts and calls showing on the watch you don’t need to find your phone to check.

            I use my watch with alarms/ timers to know when I need to clock out or in from lunch etc while I mostly leave my phone at my desk while at work so if I’m walking around the building I still get my alerts through my watch

          • curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 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.

      • Jrockwar@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        7 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.

      • DashboTreeFrog@discuss.online
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 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

      • bstix@feddit.dk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        Knowing a clock is more than just telling time.

        When you’re walking with your homies you gotta be able to call out “gyat 3 o’clock” , so your fellow bros know where to look.

      • andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 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
        1
        ·
        7 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
        1
        ·
        7 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
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

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