3 ms·
Of course, if they had, then they wouldn't have worn watches at all, just like most folks today do not wear watches for anything other than fashion. This doesn'
by nilkn 12y ago
Of course, if they had, then they wouldn't have worn watches at all, just like most folks today do not wear watches for anything other than fashion. This doesn't in any way contest his point.
- CamperBob2 12y agoSure it does. The fact that clocks weren't as ubiquitous provided an incentive to move the "personal clock" to the wrist, where it would be easier to check. Pocket watches wouldn't have been replaced by wristwatches in the modern world; they would simply have vanished.
- nilkn 12y agoIf anything, your argument advocates for smartwatches. When I get a notification and I'm not physically at a desktop computer, there is no way for me to check that notification other than my phone. It's the exact same problem that you just wrote about pocket watches, except it's not about the time -- it's about all the other information that we now want instant access to and can only get by removing a physical device from our pockets.