Don't fix the problem just change the parameters
-
I hope you are not serious. If the shadow (hand) is on two, it's two o'clock. If it's on three, it's three o'clock. If it's exactly between those two ticks it's half past two. There isn't even anything to learn (at least when they were invented). That's exactly how the hour hand on a clock works.
(Note: Today it would be a bit more complicated if you want wall-clock-time because the sun dial always tells local solar time and if you want the time in your time zone you would have to adjust for DST and use the equation of time for some smaller corrections)
wrote last edited by [email protected]You don't know how to read one - you've forgotten to calibrate it.
If you don't do that before use, it's measurements are meaningless. Correcting for DST and dates and other minor aspects of how time is handled in the modern era is important (blech screw DST), but this issue was present even in the roman era and is why sundials have movable faces. Premodern observatories (eg. stonehenge or the observatories at pisac) have references to correct the measurements for things like change in solar position and the progression towards the equinox for the same reason.
I don't think we should get rid of analog clocks, I just wanted to point out that your example here isn't a very good one to use.
-
Digitals are way easier to read.
wrote last edited by [email protected]You can teach three year olds to read analog clocks (see my other post) but I've yet so see three year olds reading and understanding digital clocks. I get the feeling in this thread that everybody that has issues with analog clocks is from the US and that might come from the fact that the US (at least it seems based on this thread) has almost no exposure to analog clocks.
-
Devolving to linguistic prescriptivism just proves you don't have an argument anymore lol
No, it shows that people who cannot read the clock are also unable to write.
-
what's angular resolution now
It's about how far the hand moves in a given time. On a normal 12h circle analog clock the hand moves 30Ā° per hour. On a 24h analog clock that's halfed to 15Ā° per hour.
-
You don't know how to read one - you've forgotten to calibrate it.
If you don't do that before use, it's measurements are meaningless. Correcting for DST and dates and other minor aspects of how time is handled in the modern era is important (blech screw DST), but this issue was present even in the roman era and is why sundials have movable faces. Premodern observatories (eg. stonehenge or the observatories at pisac) have references to correct the measurements for things like change in solar position and the progression towards the equinox for the same reason.
I don't think we should get rid of analog clocks, I just wanted to point out that your example here isn't a very good one to use.
wrote last edited by [email protected]What is progression towards the equinoxes? You mean precession of the equinoxes? That takes millennia and is very much negligible when reading sun dials on a day to day basis, or even year to year basis.
The orbital motions of the objects in our solar system is pretty messy and you are right that there goes more into designing accurate sun dials than just a stick in the ground, but I'd still argue that that's not part of "reading a sun dial" - which was the question I answered.
-
What was scribbled out of this screenshot with black lines, and why was it scribbled out?
The part in the middle is a screenshot of some social media site and the blacked out parts are navigation bread crums, comment counts. The answer below has a blacked out user name, profile picture, etc.
I have no idea why they would remove UI elements from a screenshot.
-
No one's asking the real question... Is that background image AI?
Nevermind that this was from 2018.
Probably because it doesn't look much like AI. At least today. In a few years we probably won't have to ask that question because they would be practically indistinguishable.
-
What is progression towards the equinoxes? You mean precession of the equinoxes? That takes millennia and is very much negligible when reading sun dials on a day to day basis, or even year to year basis.
The orbital motions of the objects in our solar system is pretty messy and you are right that there goes more into designing accurate sun dials than just a stick in the ground, but I'd still argue that that's not part of "reading a sun dial" - which was the question I answered.
wrote last edited by [email protected]No, I mean the progression towards the equinoxes - historically the equinoxes were a common way to demark calendar dates, and as a result they're a useful reference point. Not universal, of course, but still frequently used enough to be useful when discussing this topic.
I get you're arguing because, well, this is the internet and I contradicted you. That's how it works, our egos are too tied up in our comments alone and it's too easy to read any tone into a comment that we'd like. We get defensive, our wounded egos make things heated. So in that spirit, let me be explicit that I'm not trying to be rude to you when I say this: You're oversimplifying the metaphor to make your point.
For example: I've been sitting around for a full day, but the damn clock says only twelve minutes have gone by.
You adjust a sundial in the morning every day, and then can read it from there (assuming it hasn't been jostled) - but you still have to be aware of the rules and conventions of the system, and work within it's boundaries. If we arbitrarily dismiss critical parts of it's operation, there will be no meaning in anything we have to say. The territory of things like "clocks don't measure time, they measure circles and everything we derive from them is thence wild and baseless speculation"; literally true and I can defend that position until we both die of carefully-measured old age, but reduced to the point that it's completely meaningless.
-
not really. It's faster while writing it sometimes. But if you factor in the time it takes to try reading it a year later you end up with a net loss
I disagree. I grew up in the 80s and 90s, and I had to read cursive all the time, since my boomer parents used it constantly.
When you read it regularly, it doesn't take any longer to read than block letters.I never used cursive because I never got into enough of a habit of using it before technology made the skillset unnecessary. I think I write down one thing a month? if that? I use computers the rest of the time, whether it's the small rectangle that fits in my pocket, the larger folding rectangle that goes in my backpack, or the larger cube like one that sits under my desk at home.... I use computers about 1000x more than a pen.
That doesn't change the fact that I can look at cursive and know what it says as instantly as if it were typed text. Me not being able to, or simply not writing cursive is entirely a me problem.
-
The older you are the more you actually learned in school.
Don't undersell all of the life lessons you learned from being the age you are.
Part of the reason why kids seem so dumb is because they don't have that life experience yet. They're still figuring it out. I'm sure that when I was a kid people looked at me and thought I was pretty dumb, just like many adults do to the kids now. blave has the right attitude about it; teach them. Someone has to. If everyone shrugs it off that someone will do it, then nobody does it.
-
I think I learned how to read a clock in preschool, not from my parents
"little hand", "big hand" kind of stuff.... yeah, I vaguely recall going over that when I was in JK/SK, possibly in the first few grade levels. IDK, I'm old now, so I don't remember a lot of what happened when I was around 6.
-
This post did not contain any content.
To the title, that's always been the case.
"no child left behind" turned into "make it easier until everyone passes"
Shit isn't new. it's been going on for a long, long ass time. -
This post did not contain any content.
I loved when a class would get quiet enough to hear the seconds hand click on the mechanical motor. I lived to see how close it was to the end of minute. One time in class I counted how black dots were on the ceiling. Wow I was bored
-
This post did not contain any content.
I feel like I'm going insane reading these comments about how difficult it is to read analog clocks, how it needs too much understanding of maths, how it takes too long,...
Can someone please confirm: you just look, for a fraction of a second, at the clock face and know the time, right?
Learning to read the clock was like... A couple of lessons and some homework in the 2nd grade, and everyone got it.
-
I feel like I'm going insane reading these comments about how difficult it is to read analog clocks, how it needs too much understanding of maths, how it takes too long,...
Can someone please confirm: you just look, for a fraction of a second, at the clock face and know the time, right?
Learning to read the clock was like... A couple of lessons and some homework in the 2nd grade, and everyone got it.
wrote last edited by [email protected]I feel like I'm going insane reading these comments about how difficult it is to read analog clocks,
Some of these comments are made by lazy idiots arguing that there is nothing wrong with being lazy idiot.
-
I feel like I'm going insane reading these comments about how difficult it is to read analog clocks, how it needs too much understanding of maths, how it takes too long,...
Can someone please confirm: you just look, for a fraction of a second, at the clock face and know the time, right?
Learning to read the clock was like... A couple of lessons and some homework in the 2nd grade, and everyone got it.
I can confirm. You are not insane.
-
No, I mean the progression towards the equinoxes - historically the equinoxes were a common way to demark calendar dates, and as a result they're a useful reference point. Not universal, of course, but still frequently used enough to be useful when discussing this topic.
I get you're arguing because, well, this is the internet and I contradicted you. That's how it works, our egos are too tied up in our comments alone and it's too easy to read any tone into a comment that we'd like. We get defensive, our wounded egos make things heated. So in that spirit, let me be explicit that I'm not trying to be rude to you when I say this: You're oversimplifying the metaphor to make your point.
For example: I've been sitting around for a full day, but the damn clock says only twelve minutes have gone by.
You adjust a sundial in the morning every day, and then can read it from there (assuming it hasn't been jostled) - but you still have to be aware of the rules and conventions of the system, and work within it's boundaries. If we arbitrarily dismiss critical parts of it's operation, there will be no meaning in anything we have to say. The territory of things like "clocks don't measure time, they measure circles and everything we derive from them is thence wild and baseless speculation"; literally true and I can defend that position until we both die of carefully-measured old age, but reduced to the point that it's completely meaningless.
Do you have a link or something that explains "progression towards the equinoxes". I never heard of that and can't find anything about it.
-
Do you know how to read a sundial?
wrote last edited by [email protected]Yes. The same as analogue clock, genius
-
Do you have a link or something that explains "progression towards the equinoxes". I never heard of that and can't find anything about it.
wrote last edited by [email protected]You understand that it's just a description, right? "The progression of time towards the equinoxes". It's not a formal term.
-
But why add unnecessary complexity?
Like analog clocks are fine, they show time progress in a way digital don't.But why read it in that more convoluted way? Like, I can tell you that you have 10100~bin~ seconds to answer some question, and you can tell that's 20 seconds, but why the fuck do it that way. The only time it's "five minutes till quarter to four in the afternoon" rather than 15:40 is when writing an assay, perhaps.
But why read it in that more convoluted way?
Perhaps just the thing where you are from? I never heard anyone referring to "five minutes before quarter to", it is idiotic. You would say "twenty to four".
