Watches Are for the Poor

If you were a worker during most of the industrial revolution, you probably tracked time using church bells, the clock in your workplace, the sun, or a man with a long pole who'd wake you up in time for your shift by tapping on your shutters. You wouldn't have a watch any more than a worker in 1968 would have a computer.

You would also likely face consequences for failing to turn up to church on your Sunday off.

Watches were invented for the rich for the very reason the same article describes: it was the poor -- which was to say -- the farmers, who didn't really need to know their time, as general time of day is more than sufficient for farming. In addition, the church used to sound the time (the bell would be sound five times at 5PM etc.) On the other hand, a rich city-dweller might need to know how much time was left until an opera performance that begins at seven.

However, the difference is much more rural-urban than rich-poor. The worker needs to know when the factory he works at starts, but the factory owner also needs to know when the factory he owns starts. The artisan opening a shop needs to know when to open it, but the rich guy who buys some luxury item from the artisan (eg. a nice tailored suit) needs to know when the artisan shop closes.

Yes the wrist watch, was a worker's item, because it enabled him to look at the time while his hands were doing something else. Gentlemen wore pocket watches. But that has nothing to do with the general idea of a watch or time-keeping device.

There is also the old fashioned wall clock, which people who have more domestic lifestyles (traditionally, women) would use to tell the time. Bellow it sits the old fashioned calendar, which both of my grandmas check off ever morning. The person who was out and about would use still use the calendar in the morning and would know what day it was for the rest of the day (if that information mattered to him).

Much more often, the day that actually mattered is the day of the week, and I can always tell you what day of the week it is, and everyone always probably could (including farmers -- since they went to church on Sundays). In fact, the farmer's sense of date in the year was much more based around religious dates (days until Christmas, days until Easter, etc.) than on the Xth of September. Again, the difference becomes rural-urban, not rich-poor.

Finally, the reason the time is more important than the date is about biology and the social integration of biology. Your body needs to sleep, eat, and can do a certain amount of work in a fairly daily cycle. To keep society cohesive, we assign certain times for each activity. The date also matters but less so: it matters for farming, etc. but more so the season than the exact date.

As we urbanize, the gradations of time become more important: what minute is it? what day is it in September? This happens around both the date the time axis. The time of day is still more important, but the date of the month becomes more important than in was in rural society.

That sentence is stupendously dumb, but is so 2025. Is he saying read no further, because the article is slop? Has he forgot what thinking is, and that LLMs don't do it (despite feature-branding decisions by their promoters)?