5 ms·
>On a more practical note, why would you want to have seconds on the clock? for timing things. For example, it's super easy to check a heart rate if you don't
by serf 10y ago
>On a more practical note, why would you want to have seconds on the clock?
for timing things.
For example, it's super easy to check a heart rate if you don't need to provide timing or rhythm.
Or waiting on ramen , or steeping tea. Lots of reasons.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- Coincoin 10y agoJust click on the clock, it will pop a window with seconds in it.
- kakarot 10y agoIt depends on how often you find yourself timing things at that level of fidelity. For me it's quite often and having seconds always displayed really helps out. Especially when developing software and checking things like compile times, load times, etc
- tedunangst 10y agoIf you find yourself measuring compile times frequently, I think you'll be much happier with a command that actually times the operation than trying to eyeball it from the status bar. I can't imagine staring at a compilation and being unable to look away lest I miss the finish.
- kakarot 10y agoWell it's more out of curiosity and I don't specifically measure compile times often. I develop in a variety of domains and for some things a fuzzy count of how many seconds something takes is useful. If keeping track of things with finer grained tools is required, that's fine. Whichever is the most productive for the given problem.
- kk_cz 10y agoFor anyone running Win95 wondering why this doesn't work: You need to double-click, guys.
- danneu 10y agoThat doesn't work when you need to be clicking around and focusing other windows while keeping time.