6 ms·

> This is especially apparent when you're trying to calculate "how much time until my next meeting?", and your next meeting is at noon. If it's 11:55, you woul

by jsnell 2y ago

> This is especially apparent when you're trying to calculate "how much time until my next meeting?", and your next meeting is at noon. If it's 11:55, you would usually mentally subtract and conclude: the meeting is in 5 minutes. That's how I always do it myself anyway! But the most probable estimate given the available information is actually 4'30"! Ok. But what does it mean for a meeting to start at 12:00 when people don't have clocks that will accurately show 12:00? They'll only know when the time is 11:59:30 or 12:00:30, anything between is just going to be a guess. So it seems to me that the start times would just align to the half-minute offsets instead, and we'd be back exactly where we started but with more complexity.

xattt 2y ago
All broadcast studios are equipped with master clocks that show seconds to deal with this ambiguity. You can look at your own watch and anticipate when program transitions in radio or TV are supposed to take place (usually the minute and 30 second marks). Also, get a sense when a host is filling time to get to the transition.
- dylan604 2y ago
  I've done a lot of work with hosts on various shows. One guy stood out more than others on being so natural on the vamp/stretch to fill the time. Starting at 5mins, we give one minute signals. Not once did it ever sound unnatural in trying to rush or filled with ums, uhs, or ahs. Others struggled with the rushing being most noticeable.
  - xattt 2y ago
    > vamp Thanks for teaching me a new term!
    - dylan604 2y ago
      I think it's every host's worst nightmare when they see it when reading the teleprompter. It's my worst nightmare when watching local news feeds where they are clearly off prompter or vamping.
  - ycombinatrix 2y ago
    Well now you're half a second late
  - mb5 2y ago
    Jonathan Agnew has a similar story about the late, great Australian cricket commentator Richie Benaud, although filling ~52 seconds rather than 5 minutes. https://youtu.be/FsmtFZQJbHU https://youtu.be/FsmtFZQJbHU
bena 2y ago
Exactly, this article can be summed up on one sentence: "Look at me, I'm so clever"
sigmar 2y ago
This is a good point. There's tons of times when I'm watching a clock to watch for a precise moment (like buying concert tickets, limited edition merchandise, stock market opening). Losing the ability to see when a 12:00:00 happens would be annoying
brnt 2y ago
The technically correct thing to do would be to educate on precision, perhaps even display it, such that people know that 12:00 means a time between 11:59 and 12:01, not 12:00.000.
- timerol 2y ago
  The point is that we use 12:00 to note a time between 12:00:00.0 (inclusive) and 12:01:00.0 (exclusive). Saying that 12:00 is a time between 11:59 and 12:01 implies that the range of error is twice as big as it actually is. How long between 12:01:00.0 and 12:00 (as read on a clock)? Between 0 and 60 seconds. How long between 11:59:00.0 and 12:00 (as read on a clock)? Between 60 and 120 seconds.
  - brnt 2y ago
    What I am saying is that that use is incorrect as well. There is only one way to understand numbers, and that is scientifically. I.e. significant digit.
- lxgr 2y ago
  Good luck educating people on why they should change lifelong habits that actually even make more sense most of the time too.
- snowfarthing 2y ago
  With the lack of precision for clocks the way they are, and worries about variance in travel time due to traffic, distractions, potty emergencies, and so forth, the more natural way to handle precision is to give yourself a 5-to-15-minute-to-an-hour buffer to ensure that you're in your seat when the clock ticks from 11:59 to 12:00. And yes, 5-to-15-to-an-hour is something that varies, depending on the length of your trip. 5 is appropriate when you're in your office and you need to get to the conference room, 15 if you're driving from your nearby home, an hour if you're flying in, or if you have to drive 200 miles or so -- particularly if it's a trip you don't regularly take! For meetings, I actually give myself 16 "precise" minutes -- one minute less than 15, with 4-minute-30-second snoozes, so I can have both adequate warning, and regular pokes, to make sure I can do something on time.
croes 2y ago
> If it's 11:55, you would usually mentally subtract and conclude: the meeting is in 5 minutes. Even that part is wrong. I guess I‘m not the only one who knows and thinks it’s less than 5 minutes.
FartyMcFarter 2y ago
> If it's 11:55, you would usually mentally subtract and conclude: the meeting is in 5 minutes. That's how I always do it myself anyway! But the most probable estimate given the available information is actually 4'30"! The way I like to think about it is "the meeting is in less than 5 minutes". Which is always correct since my reaction time to seeing the clock switching to 11:55 is greater than zero. It could even be less than 4 minutes if it has already switched to 11:56 and I haven't had time to react to that change, but that's OK - my assessment that I have less than 5 minutes to get to the meeting is still correct.
timerol 2y ago
If you care about starting a meeting to within better precision than a minute, use a clock that shows seconds. If I want to start a meeting at noon, I don't block off the minute display of my clock and wait for the 11 -> 12 transition to start the meeting.
caseyy 2y ago
> If it's 11:55, you would usually mentally subtract and conclude: the meeting is in 5 minutes. That's how I always do it myself anyway And if you showed up to the meeting in exactly 5 minutes, you’d be on time!

by jsnell 2y ago

xattt 2y ago

All broadcast studios are equipped with master clocks that show seconds to deal with this ambiguity. You can look at your own watch and anticipate when program transitions in radio or TV are supposed to take place (usually the minute and 30 second marks). Also, get a sense when a host is filling time to get to the transition.

dylan604 2y ago
I've done a lot of work with hosts on various shows. One guy stood out more than others on being so natural on the vamp/stretch to fill the time. Starting at 5mins, we give one minute signals. Not once did it ever sound unnatural in trying to rush or filled with ums, uhs, or ahs. Others struggled with the rushing being most noticeable.
- xattt 2y ago
  > vamp Thanks for teaching me a new term!
  - dylan604 2y ago
    I think it's every host's worst nightmare when they see it when reading the teleprompter. It's my worst nightmare when watching local news feeds where they are clearly off prompter or vamping.
- ycombinatrix 2y ago
  Well now you're half a second late
- mb5 2y ago
  Jonathan Agnew has a similar story about the late, great Australian cricket commentator Richie Benaud, although filling ~52 seconds rather than 5 minutes. https://youtu.be/FsmtFZQJbHU https://youtu.be/FsmtFZQJbHU

bena 2y ago

Exactly, this article can be summed up on one sentence: "Look at me, I'm so clever"

sigmar 2y ago

This is a good point. There's tons of times when I'm watching a clock to watch for a precise moment (like buying concert tickets, limited edition merchandise, stock market opening). Losing the ability to see when a 12:00:00 happens would be annoying

brnt 2y ago

The technically correct thing to do would be to educate on precision, perhaps even display it, such that people know that 12:00 means a time between 11:59 and 12:01, not 12:00.000.

timerol 2y ago
The point is that we use 12:00 to note a time between 12:00:00.0 (inclusive) and 12:01:00.0 (exclusive). Saying that 12:00 is a time between 11:59 and 12:01 implies that the range of error is twice as big as it actually is. How long between 12:01:00.0 and 12:00 (as read on a clock)? Between 0 and 60 seconds. How long between 11:59:00.0 and 12:00 (as read on a clock)? Between 60 and 120 seconds.
- brnt 2y ago
  What I am saying is that that use is incorrect as well. There is only one way to understand numbers, and that is scientifically. I.e. significant digit.
lxgr 2y ago
Good luck educating people on why they should change lifelong habits that actually even make more sense most of the time too.
snowfarthing 2y ago
With the lack of precision for clocks the way they are, and worries about variance in travel time due to traffic, distractions, potty emergencies, and so forth, the more natural way to handle precision is to give yourself a 5-to-15-minute-to-an-hour buffer to ensure that you're in your seat when the clock ticks from 11:59 to 12:00. And yes, 5-to-15-to-an-hour is something that varies, depending on the length of your trip. 5 is appropriate when you're in your office and you need to get to the conference room, 15 if you're driving from your nearby home, an hour if you're flying in, or if you have to drive 200 miles or so -- particularly if it's a trip you don't regularly take! For meetings, I actually give myself 16 "precise" minutes -- one minute less than 15, with 4-minute-30-second snoozes, so I can have both adequate warning, and regular pokes, to make sure I can do something on time.

croes 2y ago

> If it's 11:55, you would usually mentally subtract and conclude: the meeting is in 5 minutes. Even that part is wrong. I guess I‘m not the only one who knows and thinks it’s less than 5 minutes.

FartyMcFarter 2y ago

> If it's 11:55, you would usually mentally subtract and conclude: the meeting is in 5 minutes. That's how I always do it myself anyway! But the most probable estimate given the available information is actually 4'30"! The way I like to think about it is "the meeting is in less than 5 minutes". Which is always correct since my reaction time to seeing the clock switching to 11:55 is greater than zero. It could even be less than 4 minutes if it has already switched to 11:56 and I haven't had time to react to that change, but that's OK - my assessment that I have less than 5 minutes to get to the meeting is still correct.

timerol 2y ago

If you care about starting a meeting to within better precision than a minute, use a clock that shows seconds. If I want to start a meeting at noon, I don't block off the minute display of my clock and wait for the 11 -> 12 transition to start the meeting.

caseyy 2y ago

> If it's 11:55, you would usually mentally subtract and conclude: the meeting is in 5 minutes. That's how I always do it myself anyway And if you showed up to the meeting in exactly 5 minutes, you’d be on time!