All universal statements like this are wrong and stem from basic ignorance
> So when it's actually 14:15:45, they'll show 14:15. And when the actual time goes from 14:15:59 to 14:16:00, then that's when your clock changes from 14:15 to 14:16.
No, that's a silly mistake, look at the picture (though much better - video) of the analogue clock to see it's not the case, the minutes hand moves continuously, so isn't at 15 at 15:59
> the meeting is in 5 minutes.
That's not the only question we ask about time. Has the meeting/game already started? You can't answer that with an average value
> for some context appropriate reason) you reply with just hours, you would say it's 11!
No, you reply would depend on the context, which you haven't specified.
> Please someone tell me I'm not crazy
Of course not, just trying to replace one ambiguity with another. Maybe instead come up with a more precise minutes display in digital clocks that adds more info like two dots flashing when it's past 30 sec and only 1 dot when it's before? (In phones you could use color or a few more pixels within all the padding?)
Yup, I think the "has the {thing} already started" is, for many people, the most useful function of precise time anyway. All sorts of work and personal meetings, transportation schedules, doctor's appointments, and so on.
Knowing the ballpark in the form of "it's 15:30-ish", even if more precise, is strictly less useful than "you're late to the 15:30 meeting with your manager".
Fun article nonetheless, and interesting perspectives on both sides!
Not all analog clocks continuously move the minute pointer. In train stations I often see the seconds pointer move continuously and when it reaches the 12, it stops there for a second or two, then the minute pointer moves, stopping at the next minute, briefly vibrating, then the seconds pointer moves on.
> So when it's actually 14:15:45, they'll show 14:15. And when the actual time goes from 14:15:59 to 14:16:00, then that's when your clock changes from 14:15 to 14:16.
No, that's a silly mistake, look at the picture (though much better - video) of the analogue clock to see it's not the case, the minutes hand moves continuously, so isn't at 15 at 15:59
> the meeting is in 5 minutes.
That's not the only question we ask about time. Has the meeting/game already started? You can't answer that with an average value
> for some context appropriate reason) you reply with just hours, you would say it's 11!
No, you reply would depend on the context, which you haven't specified.
> Please someone tell me I'm not crazy
Of course not, just trying to replace one ambiguity with another. Maybe instead come up with a more precise minutes display in digital clocks that adds more info like two dots flashing when it's past 30 sec and only 1 dot when it's before? (In phones you could use color or a few more pixels within all the padding?)