News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
It takes just a few minutes to learn how to read an analog clock. Once you've got the idea, you'll be slow deciphering the time at first, but once you start doing it, very quickly you'll be reading it immediately with just a glance.
I see analog clocks all over the place, especially waiting rooms and public buildings, and I have a very nice pretty one in my house. I think the people saying they're not being used anymore just aren't noticing them, they're just background scenery to them and don't enter their consciousness.
I learned how to read one over 20 years ago, when am I supposed to get to the point where it's just a glance? (And it's not like I rarely encountered analog clocks growing up, the only clock I could see during breakfast was an analog clock...)
I don't mind them but for me digital is much faster to read. Granted it's still like 2 seconds at most so not like it really matters, but I find it to be noticably more mental effort.
Every classroom I was in from kindergarten through university had analog clocks on the wall, so I was absolutely able to just glance. For years.
But since I haven't been in a classroom for so long, and I'm not surrounded by analog clocks anymore, I think I've mostly lost that ability and I've found that it takes me a couple of seconds nowadays to decode it.
It's definitely a skill that needs to be practiced to keep it up
How do you not read it at a glance? After 20 years you think you would just notice the general shapes, its all basically the same, especially if you simply round everything, which is what a lot of people do as time on an analog clock is rarely used super precise.
1/4 or 1/2 after or before, and almost.
Then what hour is the small hand approaching?
Quarter to 3.
Half past 1.
Almost 4.
Seems pretty simple. Unless you are used to 24 hours, then you would have to ignore or add 12.
If I know the hour already it's usually at a glance since I just need to see the general area of the minute hand (unless it's one of those clocks where the minute and hour hand are barely different in length so i have to first figure out which is which, but that's just a design problem).
But otherwise, or if I need to know the time more precisely (which is kinda often tbh since nowadays I mainly see analog clocks in train stations) it takes me a second or two. Whatever it is that'd make me able to read them in an instant just never got wired in my brain i guess. Digital clocks I can read at a glance.
It might be digital clocks fault that I mostly think about time in minute precision and that then might have made it harder to ever build the pattern recognition for slightly rougher time reading from analog clocks
It would just depend on how often you actually use them, it's just familiarity. If you had one in your house/classroom/office that you looked at whenever you wanted to know the time (as it used to be before digital), it would take only a quick glance. Your brain recognizes the shapes, just like it recognizes words in your native language immediately without figuring out the individual letters.
Probably too busy getting shrimp neck and not looking up, LOL.