• Echo Dot@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    61
    ·
    6 days ago

    If the day started at 1:00 then by the second hour you would be at 2:00, even though only 1 hour has passed. Effectively the day starts at 0. In fact in 24-hour time that is how it’s depicted, 00:00 with midday being depicted as 12:00, so it isn’t confusing

    • Caveman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 days ago

      In the roman empire the day/night cycle was divided into 24 segments. 12 for the day and 12 for the night which also meant a day hour in summer was longer than the night hour.

    • bampop@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      If the day started at 1:00 then by the second hour you would be at 2:00, even though only 1 hour has passed.

      When the second day of the month starts, the day of the month is 2, even though only 1 day has passed.

      I mean, numerically it does make sense to start at zero but it doesn’t seem to correspond to the way people think and talk.

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 days ago

        Feel free to take it up with the Romans. It’s their stupid calendar system.

        I also take issue with there being 7 days in a week rather than 10, it’s just messy.

  • ssfckdt@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    7 days ago

    Somebody never had a clock with roman numerals and it shows

    I remember getting into an argument with a grade school teacher over IIII because most such clocks put that for 4 instead of IV because of some fuckin reason

    • Opisek@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      I despise these so so much. IIII was historically NEVER correct. Some doofus decided to put that on a clock because it looks more symmetrical with the VIII on the other side. Terrible reasoning.

      • some_random_nick@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        6 days ago

        “However, even though it is now widely accepted that 4 must be written IV, the original and most ancient pattern for Roman numerals wasn’t the same as what we know today. Earliest models did, in fact, use VIIII for 9 (instead of IX) and IIII for 4 (instead of IV). However, these two numerals proved problematic, they were easily confused with III and VIII. Instead of the original additive notation, the Roman numeral system changed to the more familiar subtractive notation. However, this was well after the fall of the Roman Empire.”

        https://monochrome-watches.com/why-do-clocks-and-watches-use-roman-numeral-iiii-instead-of-iv/

      • mhague@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        IIII was the way Romans usually wrote 4. It’s associated with simplicity / illiteracy. But also depended on era, region, intended audience, or practicality. I think the most famous example is the coliseum using LIIII.

        There’s still variation even now; standardization is relatively new, and it’s not common knowledge. And dates… it’s like every 50-100 years people decided to write them differently.

        • naticus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 days ago

          Yeah I looked it up and saw it is a thing, and it’s interesting. I wonder if the clock I’m thinking of was just a really cheap one that was labeled as you’d expect based on Roman numerals or whether some just didn’t follow it.

      • rumba@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        7 days ago

        To be fair, Google searching Roman numerals clocks give you about a 50/50 distribution.

        I wasn’t aware of this either and I suspect we’re not alone. It’s not highly noticeable and if there’s a 50-50 chance won’t even see it…

  • teslasaur@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    It’s the same logic that was used by ancient astronomers to arrive at 360 degrees for a full revolution.

    The math is easier if you have to do it by hand.

      • Hobo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        It’s also the one advantage Imperial has over metric. It’s easier to do mental math in a lot of cases in base 12 rather than base 10.

        Now excuse me while I bar my windows and doors from the mobs of angry people that show every time I point this out.

        • ultracritical@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          6 days ago

          Only really counts for feet and inches. But yes, having your base unit be divisible by halves, thirds, quarters, sixths, and twelths with whole numbers of sub units is highly useful when fabricating objects when you don’t have access to modern tooling and supplies. In fact I would argue base 12 is the superior numerical system that was abandoned for metric and we have lost something in the meantime. Though Jan Misali might disagree with his love for sexinal.

          Imperial units do have another advantage to this day, though. When talking about machining bolts and threads Imperial use threads per inch or threads per unit length while metric uses the pitch of the thread, so mm in-between threads. This decision means that when machining imperial nuts and bolts we by default pick whole numbers of threads per inch which due to the circular nature of lathes means that a simple clock dial can keep the lead screw synchronised with the head. Since metric uses pitch we pick numbers like 1.25mm pitch which does not always synchronous well with the lead screw and head and requires some odd gear ratios to cut specific threads.

        • teslasaur@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          6 days ago

          True, but why does volume/length/weight have to be separated? I honestly wouldn’t mind a base 12 system if they were connected logically.

          • Hobo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            6 days ago

            I should have been more precise, I was really just talking about length measurements and less so on the holy fuckshit of everything else. I, too, would be super on board with a base 12 measurement system…

            If we invent it we can have 3 competing standards!

        • frezik@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          6 days ago

          Let me jump in until the mobs show up. “Noooooo, it’s just what you’re used to lalala. When is dividing by thirds ever useful, anyway?”.

          I’ve also found that if you make this point without any reference to metric vs imperial, people tend to accept it.

    • neonred@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      No it’s not, with a 12h format on an analog watch you can use the sun to find true north. It is also easier to read it when the hands have double the amount of degrees to indicate the number.

      Edit – digital watches should use 24h, I fully agree, maybe there was a misunderstanding because it’s analog watches we’re talking about here and these could stay 12h IMHO

      • Hoimo@ani.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        How do you find north on a 12h face that wouldn’t work with a 24h face? Because the method I know, requires correcting for the 12h circle.

        • neonred@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          6 days ago

          I have never seem a 24h wrist watch (I know they exist) aside from extremely seldom as wall clocks

          • Hoimo@ani.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 days ago

            I’ve looked for them, but they’re very hard to find and expensive too. You can’t just slap a 24h face on a 12h mechanism, so it’s all custom and produced in low volumes. (I think it’s technically possible to convert a 12h period into 24h by switching out a single gear, but that might ruin your minute hand too? I’m no clock maker.)

            • bluewing@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 days ago

              They don’t have to be expensive, though such watches are less popular for everyday use. In fact I’m wearing a Vostok Kommendurski with a 12/24 hour dial. When I was a medic, I needed to record all my times in 24hr format on my run reports. I think I paid $35US delivered from Russia 15 or so years ago.

              And no extra gear is needed to make an analog watch/clock indicate 24 hour time. Time doesn’t change. You simple have one scale that reads from 12AM through 12PM and then at the next hour, (1PM) it simply gets renumbered to 13, 14, 15, 16 and so on until you reach 24 on the inside scale. Easy peasey.

              But it is possible to build a watch/clock that the movement does move in 24 hour time and you would be correct it would a couple of extra gears to accomplish. But, it would also be a real pain to create a legible watch face with all those numbers on a reasonable sized watch. Far simpler and easier to print the two scales on the face and call it good.

              • Hoimo@ani.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                6 days ago

                You paid $35 for the watch, the delivery or both? Because I saw those Vostok watches with proper 24h faces, which is exactly what I’m looking for, but they’re $140. I guess that’s not super expensive for a watch, but I can get a much nicer 12h watch for that money.

                And a double numbered clock face is the simple solution, probably more convenient to read, but also not really a conversation starter :)

                Vostok Komandirskie

                • bluewing@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  6 days ago

                  I paid $35 delivered from Russia. And honestly, I do not remember if that was a sale price or not because it’s been enough years ago now.Despite all the cheap quartz watches found in Walmart, $140 really isn’t all that much for a properly made manual wind watch these days. Even a plastic Timex will set you back nearly $120 for a quartz LCD with 24 hour display and only one choice of looks. So I probably wouldn’t consider the price out of line for the Komandirski with multiple choices available.

                  A Bespoke 24 hour mechanical movement would be quite the piece of horology art. A conversation started indeed.

          • Hoimo@ani.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            6 days ago

            Yeah, that’s the method I know.

            Divide the angle that is made in half

            And that’s how you correct for the 12h face.

            • neonred@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              6 days ago

              Thought as much but never had any experience with 24h watches, so no comment on this from my side :)

                • neonred@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 days ago

                  No, no comment in the sense of I have no experience with 24h watches so I cannot comment on them regarding this topic. If others have experience they might add their share, which they did.

              • Hoimo@ani.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                6 days ago

                With a 24h watch, you line up the hour hand with the sun. Because the sun does a full circle in 24h and the hour hand does the same, lining them up will always make 24 point north (on the northern hemisphere).

                A compass is still the better option, because the magnetic field also points north in the southern hemisphere and doesn’t have to be recalibrated when you move too far east or west.

        • dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 days ago

          How the heck do you find north based on your watch? I’m pretty good at knowing where north in based on where I am.

          I live in north Manchester so I know Manchester is south. Or I can look at the sun if not midday and figure it out.

          • Alaknár@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 days ago

            How the heck do you find north based on your watch?

            Like this

            I live in north Manchester so I know Manchester is south

            What if you go on a trip to Thailand and get turned around in the jungle?

            Or I can look at the sun if not midday and figure it out

            That gives you a very approximate direction.

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

              It’s the same method.

              The distance between the sun and 12 is divided by two, because the clock face only shows half the day.

              If we had a clock with 24 hours in the circle and used the same method, it’d be the same as pointing at the sun and saying: South is where the sun will be at noon.

              • Alaknár@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                6 days ago

                You don’t need to stare directly into the ball of fire to determine where the Sun is. All you need is the flashes of light through the leaves - and you CAN see that in the jungle.

    • mhague@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      It sounds like a joke but I really had someone stop me on the street to ask for the time and when I said 2:30 they asked “AM or PM?” I guess a 24 hour clock would’ve prevented that.

    • pemptago@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 days ago

      Team 13-month-calendar assemble!

      I haven’t done enough digging on metric time, but if it’s implemented as a UTC/global time I can get behind that. I’m sick of timezones and DST.

      • JcbAzPx@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 days ago

        Nah, instead we’ll go back to the local noon standard where the time zone is set by when the sun is directly above you. Instead of a couple dozen time zones we’ll have thousands.

      • Mayonnaise@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        5 days ago

        This has become a standard on analog clocks and watches (presumably to avoid confusion with VI), but for some reason IX and XI (for 9 and 11 respectively) is fine.

        Personally I’d like to see IX and IIIIIIIIIII.

        ETA: I guess IX and XI are ‘fine’ because they’re not upside down, but my point still stands.

  • PieMePlenty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    Hour hand -> hour = n
    Minute hand -> minute = n * 5
    It makes sense, there’s just an algorithm attached to each pointer.

    Hour -> 3 = 3
    Minute -> 3 = 3 * 5 = 15

  • ParadoxSeahorse@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    7 days ago

    Well it’s because noon means nine because the day starts at six o’ clock, so three is noon, but we use it to mean twelve which is closer to midday, obviously

  • FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 days ago

    Relatively funny but gets worse the more you think about it.

    The 6 stands for 6, not 30.

    When we have AM and PM it would be dumb to have 1-24.

    1 is the end of the 1st hour. 2 the end of the second. This is why it starts at 0.

  • JoYo@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    6 days ago

    At least we’re not mixing in letters

    Zulu Time: Am I a joke to you?

  • rosco385@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 days ago

    For some reason I heard this in a combination of the voices of Mitch Hedberg, and Nate Bargatze as George Washington.