Hacker News Reader

Comment by Johnny555 | Hacker News Reader

I was going to suggest that adding a 12 or 24 cent piece would be an easier sell since people are already used to dealing with 12's due to clocks.

But in my observation, the younger generations are less adept at that -- if I tell my nephew it's "quarter 'till 3", he says "I don't know what that means", then I explain it and he has to really think about it and do the math in his head to figure out what time it is. Which makes sense since I grew up reading analog clock, and he most often uses his phone or iWatch with a digital time display most of the the time -- the habit of breaking time into quarters is not as intuitive.

View on HN

I always thought it was a weird colloquialism. Saying quarter to three takes exactly the same number of syllables as two forty-five, and the latter is more clear when communicating. You’re also using the word “to” which could be confused with “two” if the communication is garbled over the radio or a bad connection.

Even worse, I don’t know what “it’s a quarter of three” means. I’ve looked it up, but for some reason I forget it by the time it’s quarter of four!

Took me ages to remember what folks in the UK mean when they say “half six” — it’s 6:30, not “half to six” — even just now I had to double check myself.

This is varies by language. In several languages including English, "half six" is an abbreviation of "half [[an hour] past] six". In others, it's "half [[an hour] to] six".

To this American, "half six" sounds like a roundabout way to describe the number three and not a way to says it's 6:30 (or 5:30 for that matter).

I've never heard anyone say that

Yeah I find this one exhausting too because meanwhile in German "half six" is exactly that, "halfway to six"

But "halfway to six" should be three, surely? (Sorry!)

As a British person who learned Swedish -- which also uses that convention -- around the age of 10, I often found myself a little uncertain when hearing "half six" in English, as I grew up with the more explicit "half past six".

in austria you can learn about "viertel sechs" (quarter six) and "dreiviertel sechs" (three quarter six).

i'll let you work out whether those are "viertel nach fünf" (quarter past five) or "viertel vor sechs" (quarter to six), or "viertel nach sechs" (quarter past six), or "viertel vor sieben" (quarter two seven)

I confuse Finns by saying (at 2330 / 1130pm) that it's "half zero" (puoli nolla). Apparently the consensus concept does not include negative times.

Ha, like in french for some reason you can say "and a half" for hours up to 12 but not beyond. Onze heures et demi. Treize heures trente.

Typically we say half past six though which is a bit clearer. That can sometimes get a little blurred with accents particularly some northern ones haf ‘pa six.

I don't really feel every minute passing. If I want to know what time of day it is, putting it in terms of hours is more useful. If you're setting a timer or something where the minutes matter, then you can say 2:45.

If you have a wristwatch with hands you may not want to identify the exact minute (this can be a little difficult if it has a smaller face), but if it's 5 minutes either way then a "quarter-to" is close enough.

To me, it's about the significant digits. 2:46 is still a quarter to three.

When I was in college, it was a thing for students to design and build a digital LED clock out of random logic. A friend of mine wanted to make one that would tell time only in 15 minute chunks, as nobody needed more precise time than that.

Yes, I did a digital clock, too, my first digital design/build. It never did work right.

Hours are older than minutes and it's conceptually more simple to only use one unit.

Maybe it's to convey a lack of precision, "quarter till 3" is ambiguous and could be anywhere from around 2:41-2:49 (pretty much any time the minute hand is past 40 and before 50), while if you say 2:45 you generally mean 2:45 (2:40, of course is "20 till 3", but is also a bit ambiguous)

It feels easier and more natural to round to the nearest 5 or 15 minutes with an analog clock than a digital clock. But I grew up in a time when analog clocks were the norm and digital clocks and watches were an expensive novelty (or used for special purpose clocks) so I became used to analog clocks (and use an analog display on my watch, even though I could just as easily set it to a digital display).

When I do use a digital clock, I generally read the time that's displayed, I don't mentally round to the nearest 5 or 15 minutes, only with an analog clock.

I grew up with analog clocks. How I would answer would probably depend on where I got the answer from. If it came from an analog clock I'd probably say quarter to. If from a digital clock I'd probably give a rounded answer like 2:45.

My experience is that I didn’t really ‘get’ analog clocks until I was old enough to start managing my own schedule. They’re useful for quickly visualizing addition/subtraction of intervals*, but until I was a grown-up I just didn’t need that skill, since times were always told to me by adults rather than something I regularly needed to calculate for myself.

* (“How long until I need to leave to catch the bus for that appointment? Oh, it’s twenty to quarter before half past three, I still have some time”)

Fwiw I'm 43 and much the same. I grew up with a microwave clock and a digital watch and never got to the point of being able to glance at an analog clock and read the time. I can figure it out but it's not intuitive.

I prefer an analog clock because I can read it at a glance without even needing my glasses. Without glasses, a 7 segment display just looks like a row of 8's.

Yes, I see the advantages, but that doesn't make it possible.

the 1913 penny is 30 cents today. bring back the dollar coin and drop everything but the quarter.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com