3 ms·

The French tried something similar after the revolution (Decimal Time). It didn't catch on either. It's essentially pointless. Yes, it's a bit easier to repres

The French tried something similar after the revolution (Decimal Time). It didn't catch on either. It's essentially pointless. Yes, it's a bit easier to represent times and handle them differently (5:50 = 5.5h = 550m) but it's not that hard with standard time either, as evidenced by the fact that I and everyone else in the world managed to learn to tell the time about the same time we figured out how to tie our shoelaces.

telmich 13y ago
Actually it would be interesting to know whether they aborted it. I guess it was "too much use of 24/60/60 format" problem. I do though think that after we get used to SUT, our lifes will be much easier.
seanalltogether 13y ago
Its unlikely we will ever changing our system of measuring time until we find ourselves living on other planets, at which point the standard clock will feel inadequate and require a more universal solution. In terms of earth though there simply isn't enough of a catalyst to make the change.
yread 13y ago
Actually telling the time to somebody else can be even more consuming. Some languages say half past 4, some half to 5, some even say "quarter to 5" when it's 16:15 and "three quarters to 5" when it's 16:45. In some languages you can say stuff like "3 minutes before 3 quarters to 5" for 16:42. People just like to make things interesting, I guess. </OT>
- telmich 13y ago
  I guess these cultural differences will continue to exist - you even have 3 different versions for 1645 in German language. I don't think this is a problem, as cultural differences are important to exist, as they resemble local differences.
Mindless2112 13y ago
The problem is that 100-minute hours isn't better than 60-minute hours by one particular metric: divisibility. 60 is highly composite (divisible by 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6), and one of the most common operations performed on an hour is division. Perhaps dividing an hour by 5 isn't particularly common, so 24 would have worked -- as such it's not surprising that there are 24 hours in a day. 24/60/60 weren't chosen willy-nilly, and replacing them with 10/100/100 isn't an improvement.

telmich 13y ago

Actually it would be interesting to know whether they aborted it. I guess it was "too much use of 24/60/60 format" problem. I do though think that after we get used to SUT, our lifes will be much easier.

seanalltogether 13y ago

Its unlikely we will ever changing our system of measuring time until we find ourselves living on other planets, at which point the standard clock will feel inadequate and require a more universal solution. In terms of earth though there simply isn't enough of a catalyst to make the change.

yread 13y ago

Actually telling the time to somebody else can be even more consuming. Some languages say half past 4, some half to 5, some even say "quarter to 5" when it's 16:15 and "three quarters to 5" when it's 16:45. In some languages you can say stuff like "3 minutes before 3 quarters to 5" for 16:42. People just like to make things interesting, I guess. </OT>

telmich 13y ago
I guess these cultural differences will continue to exist - you even have 3 different versions for 1645 in German language. I don't think this is a problem, as cultural differences are important to exist, as they resemble local differences.

Mindless2112 13y ago

The problem is that 100-minute hours isn't better than 60-minute hours by one particular metric: divisibility. 60 is highly composite (divisible by 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6), and one of the most common operations performed on an hour is division. Perhaps dividing an hour by 5 isn't particularly common, so 24 would have worked -- as such it's not surprising that there are 24 hours in a day. 24/60/60 weren't chosen willy-nilly, and replacing them with 10/100/100 isn't an improvement.