• Echo Dot@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    61
    ·
    7 days ago

    If the day started at 1:00 then by the second hour you would be at 2:00, even though only 1 hour has passed. Effectively the day starts at 0. In fact in 24-hour time that is how it’s depicted, 00:00 with midday being depicted as 12:00, so it isn’t confusing

    • Caveman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 days ago

      In the roman empire the day/night cycle was divided into 24 segments. 12 for the day and 12 for the night which also meant a day hour in summer was longer than the night hour.

    • bampop@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      If the day started at 1:00 then by the second hour you would be at 2:00, even though only 1 hour has passed.

      When the second day of the month starts, the day of the month is 2, even though only 1 day has passed.

      I mean, numerically it does make sense to start at zero but it doesn’t seem to correspond to the way people think and talk.

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 days ago

        Feel free to take it up with the Romans. It’s their stupid calendar system.

        I also take issue with there being 7 days in a week rather than 10, it’s just messy.

  • teslasaur@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    It’s the same logic that was used by ancient astronomers to arrive at 360 degrees for a full revolution.

    The math is easier if you have to do it by hand.

      • Hobo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        It’s also the one advantage Imperial has over metric. It’s easier to do mental math in a lot of cases in base 12 rather than base 10.

        Now excuse me while I bar my windows and doors from the mobs of angry people that show every time I point this out.

        • ultracritical@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          7 days ago

          Only really counts for feet and inches. But yes, having your base unit be divisible by halves, thirds, quarters, sixths, and twelths with whole numbers of sub units is highly useful when fabricating objects when you don’t have access to modern tooling and supplies. In fact I would argue base 12 is the superior numerical system that was abandoned for metric and we have lost something in the meantime. Though Jan Misali might disagree with his love for sexinal.

          Imperial units do have another advantage to this day, though. When talking about machining bolts and threads Imperial use threads per inch or threads per unit length while metric uses the pitch of the thread, so mm in-between threads. This decision means that when machining imperial nuts and bolts we by default pick whole numbers of threads per inch which due to the circular nature of lathes means that a simple clock dial can keep the lead screw synchronised with the head. Since metric uses pitch we pick numbers like 1.25mm pitch which does not always synchronous well with the lead screw and head and requires some odd gear ratios to cut specific threads.

        • teslasaur@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          6 days ago

          True, but why does volume/length/weight have to be separated? I honestly wouldn’t mind a base 12 system if they were connected logically.

          • Hobo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            6 days ago

            I should have been more precise, I was really just talking about length measurements and less so on the holy fuckshit of everything else. I, too, would be super on board with a base 12 measurement system…

            If we invent it we can have 3 competing standards!

        • frezik@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          7 days ago

          Let me jump in until the mobs show up. “Noooooo, it’s just what you’re used to lalala. When is dividing by thirds ever useful, anyway?”.

          I’ve also found that if you make this point without any reference to metric vs imperial, people tend to accept it.

      • Mayonnaise@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        6 days ago

        This has become a standard on analog clocks and watches (presumably to avoid confusion with VI), but for some reason IX and XI (for 9 and 11 respectively) is fine.

        Personally I’d like to see IX and IIIIIIIIIII.

        ETA: I guess IX and XI are ‘fine’ because they’re not upside down, but my point still stands.

  • PieMePlenty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    Hour hand -> hour = n
    Minute hand -> minute = n * 5
    It makes sense, there’s just an algorithm attached to each pointer.

    Hour -> 3 = 3
    Minute -> 3 = 3 * 5 = 15

  • ParadoxSeahorse@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    7 days ago

    Well it’s because noon means nine because the day starts at six o’ clock, so three is noon, but we use it to mean twelve which is closer to midday, obviously

  • JoYo@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    6 days ago

    At least we’re not mixing in letters

    Zulu Time: Am I a joke to you?

  • rosco385@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 days ago

    For some reason I heard this in a combination of the voices of Mitch Hedberg, and Nate Bargatze as George Washington.

  • folekaule@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    98
    ·
    8 days ago

    At least our hours are the same length regardless of latitude now, so let’s be grateful for that.

  • WanderingThoughts@europe.pub
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    90
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 days ago

    IIRC they counted the bones in their fingers using their thumb and that gives 12. The first sundial was around the equator and there is always light for half a day, so half a day becomes 12 hours.

    To count large numbers often one hand was used to count using 5 fingers and the other to count the bones, so you get 5x12 for 60 minutes.

    • WolfLink@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      54
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      AIUI there was an aspect in the divisibility of the numbers being convenient.

      12 is divisible by 2, 3, 4, and 6. 60 is divisible by 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 20, and 30.

      10 is divisible by 2 and 5. 100 is divisible by 2, 4, 5, 10, 20, 25, and 50.

      If you want to minimize dealing with fractions, 12 and 60 are far more convenient than 10 and 100.

      • WhatsTheHoldup@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        7 days ago

        That’s an interesting thought, but I believe it to simply be a coincidence.

        The base 12 counting being based on counting the division of your fingers is historically verified, but if the division aspect was so compelling to them you’d expect it to carry forward into their writing system.

        By the time you get cuneiform math though, they actually go back to base 10.

        https://images.app.goo.gl/9GR6VEiT7GHYF3KaA

        As you can see base 12 is not in the written system, or for written mathematics. It just was convenient for counting on their hands.

        They used mixes of base 10/base 12 and base 60.

        Base 10 would be used go determine the symbols for a specific “digit” in base 60.

        So similar to how our 13 is 1 ten and 3 ones, their 13 was the symbol for 10 then 3 symbols for 1. 13 = 𒌋𒁹𒁹𒁹 But 73 would be written 𒁹 𒌋𒁹𒁹𒁹

        Which would be interpreted as 1 sixty and 13 ones, or 60 + 13

      • bluewing@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 days ago

        Even the French figured out that decimalized time was stupid after a couple of years.

        Which has added credence to the old saying that “The French follow no one. And no one follows the French.”

          • bluewing@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 days ago

            Well, beyond the sheer social resistance to the idea. Turns out everyone needs to agree it’s a great idea and almost no one did. Evidently humans are wired to the base12 time format far better.

            The attempt at switching to base10 time quickly fell apart when people started notice that the the “time markers” were starting to drift. And at some point they finally figured out that what we call “noon” was going drift rather quickly to not happening until evening and therefore Monday was going to move to a different spot also. This is a very bad thing. Because any kind of calendaring system needs to be as consistent as possible. Noon must happen at the same point in the day every day or as close to it as it it can mathematically get. If it drifts to fast and far, then it’s a worthless marker for time. And decimal time has that problem in spades.

            Now, no calendar system is perfect because the orbits of the planets in our solar system isn’t perfectly consistent. Sometimes the orbit of earth is a tiny bit faster or sometimes it’s a tiny bit slower. So we strive to get a close as we can but we still need to make adjustments. Turns out, all that math is really bloody hard.

            • Corn@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              5 days ago

              ??? That’s not how it worked at all.

              They still had the same length of time per day; 24 hours was equal to 10 french hour, each french hour was 100 french minutes, and each french minute was 100 french seconds. So noon arrived at 5 every day.

      • TrackinDaKraken@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        32
        ·
        7 days ago

        Prevents confusion between the four and the six: III, IV, V, VI, when the watch is not held perfectly vertically for viewing.

        • NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          edit-2
          6 days ago

          I’ve also heard that, because in Latin IV is the beginning of “IVPPITER” (Jupiter), there’s a theory that people avoided using “IV” as to not “disrespect” the god’s name. 🤷‍♀️

          Also, on a 12 hour clock, 3 sets of four looks clean af I guess, e.g.:

          • I, II, III, IIII
          • V, VI, VII, VIII
          • IX, X, XI, XII
  • lobut@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    57
    ·
    8 days ago

    I only recently learned the etymology of the word: “second”

    Its name comes from being the “second” division of the hour, with the minute being the first.

  • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    Days start at 0h, not 12h

    It can’t start at 12 hours if there are 24 segments.

    And keep your letters out of it too.

  • WhatsTheHoldup@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 days ago

    Don’t listen to OP’s bullshit.

    They work for big clock. They’re trying to convince you 12 hour clock is useless so they can sell you double the clock.

    • Frozengyro@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      Look at this guy, only one clock. I keep two analog clocks in each room, the AM 12-11, and PM 12-11. The way it was meant to be.