Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What time is it?

iprl.wz.cz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 84 posts

Re: What time is it?

#71

Post by olliesaunders »

excuse-me wrote: post #33
_djo_ wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think I understand what Formanek was aiming for with this. Unlike pre-compiled footage that can just be made 24 hours long, this was done in real-time with the workers forced to match the demands of the clock without the opportunity to pause during their shifts. Because of its real-time nature when you view the video synced to your local time you can't help but become somewhat invested in the success of the workers…

Every saturday millions of people invest $100s each and colleges invest $100millions in finding out which team of people can carry a leather oval from one end of a field to another. This is at least novel and at the end of it you have a clock.

You forgot the part where each team is trying to stop the other. That fact changes it from being a mere procedure to being a dynamic system.

Re: What time is it?

#73

Post by qwar »

ehsanu1 wrote: post #60
tomp wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Call me stupid, but... Why 1611?

66*24 + 24 + 3 = 1611 Every hour, 60 minute unit changes and 6 minute tens changes. 24 hour unit changes, and 3 hour tens changes.

Can someone explain this like I'm five? If I watch this for 24 hours straight, I would see 24 * 60 = 1440 transitions, would I not? So why film the extra 171?

Re: What time is it?

#74

Post by DrStalker »

qwar wrote: post #73
ehsanu1 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

66*24 + 24 + 3 = 1611 Every hour, 60 minute unit changes and 6 minute tens changes. 24 hour unit changes, and 3 hour tens changes.

Can someone explain this like I'm five? If I watch this for 24 hours straight, I would see 24 * 60 = 1440 transitions, would I not? So why film the extra 171?

it is 1611 if you count transitions of individual digits (i.e.: 8:59 -> 9:00 is three transitions because 3 digits changes)

I personally consider it to be 1440 transitions with some transitions involving multiple digits (and hence harder to do) but arguments can be made for both ways of counting.

Re: What time is it?

#75

Post by jarek »

gaving wrote: post #70
motiejus wrote: post #45

Flash version 9,0 or greater is required You have no flash plugin installed Download latest version from here I do not have a flash player on my machine for more than 6 months. This is the first website I encountered that I cannot use at all .

Ditto. Flash is dead.

If Flash was really dead you wouldn't have bothered posting about how dead it is.

Re: What time is it?

#76

Post by rivo »

Looking at this from my office in Berlin, I thought "wow, they're even using GeoIP and some clever compositing to adjust the background to wherever I am."

Re: What time is it?

#77

Post by nelsonfork »

_djo_ wrote: post #24
ntkachov wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Formanek has since staged a few live re-enactments of this clock being built I will never understand people that appreciate this kind of art. Call me classical, but I really don't see watching a clock interesting. Someone at the Boston MFA made a 24 hr movie where they compile different bits of film that includes a clock into a real time clock (so if it was 10:23 it would show 10:23 in a bit of the clip). It was int…

I think I understand what Formanek was aiming for with this. Unlike pre-compiled footage that can just be made 24 hours long, this was done in real-time with the workers forced to match the demands of the clock without the opportunity to pause during their shifts. Because of its real-time nature when you view the video synced to your local time you can't help but become somewhat invested in the success of the workers…

I can't watch the video because I'm on my phone but your explanation makes me want to bookmark it for later. Thanks!

Re: What time is it?

#80

Post by slaven »

scott_s wrote: post #55
ntkachov wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Formanek has since staged a few live re-enactments of this clock being built I will never understand people that appreciate this kind of art. Call me classical, but I really don't see watching a clock interesting. Someone at the Boston MFA made a 24 hr movie where they compile different bits of film that includes a clock into a real time clock (so if it was 10:23 it would show 10:23 in a bit of the clip). It was int…

I really don't care if we call it art or not. I just think it's neat, it makes me go, "Oh! Cool!" and puts a smile on my face. I'm glad someone is doing it. Much like Improve Everywhere: http://improveverywhere.com/

But that is what art is supposed to do - inspire emotion. I had the same reaction btw.
Post reply on HN