>Time is a continuum, not discrete; analogue watches demonstrate that, while digital ones do not
While obviously true, we often treat time as discrete to an appropriate level of precision. Timekeeping in sports is essentially all digital these days for example. And generally speaking (at least for some contexts), 10am really does mean 10am, not 10ish.
I actually normally use an analog display on my Apple Watch but I think it's mostly to have something different as pretty much all the other clocks I use, including the watch I usually wear, are digital.
The issue is 10AM has real meaning but you’re only actually at 10AM for an instant mostly you want to know how long until something happens.
Think of a meeting at 10AM with an analog clock you can get an intuitive feel for how long you have to finish what your working on. With a digital clock it’s easy to do the calculation but that distracts from the task at hand.
It’s most noticeable with a seconds. Many analog clocks include a second hand because it’s actually useful, while few digital clocks do so.
I find it much easier to judge how urgent it is to finish given the information that it's 9:54 than by looking at an analog clock. I wore an analog watch from age ~5-20 out of stubbornness and never got to the point where it conveyed useful information to me without actively stopping to think.
I think much like reading is abstracted to a point where the "shape" of the words conveys the meaning (and you can muddle up the inner letters without much loss of information), when you use digital clocks enough the subconscious meaning of the shape of the numbers is what you see. I don't have to do a manual conversion to understand from the 16:54 on my phone screen that I have 5 minutes until 5pm - I just "know" that from a single glance.
Ultimately both digital and analog clocks are abstractions which convey meaning to whatever our internal sense of time is. I suspect the internal concept of time is quite different for everyone (hence why my mum is always late for everything...)
I can't say I've ever taken the second hand into account when looking at an analogue clock to check the time, nor do I usually find myself reading the minute hand more precisely than 5 minute intervals. I've certainly watched it slowly approach 12 when waiting to get out of class or something like that, but I could just as easily watch a number count up toward 60.
It’s a useful skill. Anyway, you don’t actually need a second hand to get sub minute precision as a minute hand should be continually sweeping through the range.
Which is why people in the thread are talking about the feel of time. You can get an intuitive feel of how much you need to speed up etc.
I was aware I had poor eyesight, but I'm kind of amazed to hear that there's anyone who can clearly see the position of a minute hand between two tick marks on a clock from any reasonable distance.
How many analogue clocks do you have which you trust to be that accurate? One huge advantage of a digital clock (on a phone, anyway) is that it's NTP synced with an atomic clock - so it's highly accurate and will remain that way.
I know that when I'm running for a train, I rely on my phone more than my analogue wristwatch - because the analogue clock is rarely perfectly accurate, and that matters.
While obviously true, we often treat time as discrete to an appropriate level of precision. Timekeeping in sports is essentially all digital these days for example. And generally speaking (at least for some contexts), 10am really does mean 10am, not 10ish.
I actually normally use an analog display on my Apple Watch but I think it's mostly to have something different as pretty much all the other clocks I use, including the watch I usually wear, are digital.