You're viewing a single thread.
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?
its not in their standardized tests and that's the only thing that determines funding. Its a nightmare ...
Apparently it’s literally in the standardised tests… that’s what’s causing the problems! 😉
It must be in the standardized test, how else would they know there was a problem? Test something that is not in the standardized test?
Yes.
But they don't need to know it. So they stopped teaching it.
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.
Every day?
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.
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….
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.
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?
It's called rhetorical question.
I'd argue that you are a very small minority. Most people under 50 probably barely have any analog clocks around.
I disagree, I am under 50 and wear an analog wristwatch every day, but if I want to know the time I just look on my phone.
Most people under 50 probably barely have any analog clocks around.
Every home/apt of every under 40 year old person I have ever been in has had at least one analog clock. And most have had several.
Also, grandfather clocks are a thing. And they're gorgeous.
Extremely anti-social to act like digital clocks are better - similar to acting like social media and Facetime calls are in any way superior to irl face-to-face interaction - as our current loneliness epidemic demonstrates
So since you don’t use something no one should learn it? Crap take.
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.
Learning how a sundial works would teach them more than leaning how an analog clock works, in that regard.
I actually agree with you. I can read an analog clock, but what worth is the skill? Most clocks are digital, and it gives me nothing more to read an analog one. People downvoting you is just silly. Some skills are allowed to die out if they add no value in modern life.
Someone else made a comment and I think it's great so imma plagiarize it-
If kids are taught to read an analog clock early, which isn't very hard to learn, they are getting a leg up on fractions, percentages, and geometry.
I don't actually believe this is true.
It rather, I imagine that they could get an even greater leg up if that time was spent teaching something else
Yeah, same for me
I wonder how many people feel this way about writing when everyone just types/texts everything.
There are fewer and fewer applications for writing, but it’s still more important than reading an analog clock.
How so?
I genuinely don't understand the clock-face-reading-is-a-useless-skill opinion so both seem equally important to me.
Fair enough. Most people don’t encounter analog clocks anymore. And many of us have smart watches or phones where we check the time. Since I have a non-analog watch, I don’t find I ever look at analog clocks anymore. If it’s in a room, I just don’t notice it. Growing up, it was important to know, but now I just never have a use for it. Learning is important, but there are so many more interesting and useful things to learn.
You could also make an argument about automatic or manual cars. Sure, we could teach our kids how to drive manual, but why? Most cars are automatic. If they want to have a manual car, they can learn. Otherwise it’s just a useless skill.
Yea that's kind of what I was thinking when I said eventually handwriting will go the same way.
If people never encounter it and do all their writing on keyboards, it'll eventually be a useless skill as well.
Exactly. I find that I sign the back of checks and write brief sentences in birthday cards. Neither of those feel like they’ll be around for a lot longer.
Daily. There’s one in my kitchen and one at my office.
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.
Digital isn't better it's just different. Also a tonne of wristwatches are still analogue.
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.
"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.
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
To be fair, I did have a watch that automatically synced itself to the us naval observatories atomic clocks over the air.
Yeah, but you need to factor in the distance to the transmitter. Going to add at least a few microseconds to your time accuracy!
Latency is accounted for in the sync process
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..
The watches/clocks they are talking about listened to WWV, a set of radio stations transmitting from Fort Collins, Colorado. The system long predates the Network Time Protocol you're referring to. Radio controlled clocks/watches had no means for accounting for latency.
Ahh OK my bad. I've only worked with NTP for a long time and wasn't aware of the earlier stuff.
If you're interested in prehistory, listen to this for a couple minutes.
There's nothing stopping an analog clock face from representing 24h time:
🤢 what an utter abomination
This is why puppies die
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.
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
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
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
Watches that can get alerts can show digital time. So, chalk another point up for not learning analog time.
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.
Wristwatches don't have the negative psychologically addictive and anxiety-producing effects of smartphones
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.
Also, just because they’re useful doesn’t make them necessary.
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.
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.
Ok you know what. I was ready to conclude that learning to read analog clocks isn't that useful but you've actually convinced me otherwise.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Time isn't just a number though. Especially not when it comes to clocks. And it's also bound to Mass.
It's just a number equally as much as it's just the angle of the two sticks in a circle. Analogue clocks don't give a special insight into the nature of time
100% it is antiquated technology.