• @WanderingThoughts@europe.pub
    link
    fedilink
    871 month 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
      54
      edit-2
      1 month 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
        9
        edit-2
        1 month 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
        41 month 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
            01 month 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
              1
              edit-2
              29 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        321 month ago

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

        • NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ
          link
          fedilink
          18
          edit-2
          1 month 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
          • @Merva@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            9
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            Since the IIII usage is common in the Middle Ages and even into the Early Modern Period, when nobody believed in Jupiter, that is obviously just something somebody made up.

            • NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ
              link
              fedilink
              3
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              It could have also started from that and continued on despite people not knowing the reason, no? I do agree that it’s quite silly and unlikely, though.

  • Echo Dot
    link
    fedilink
    611 month 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

      • Echo Dot
        link
        fedilink
        01 month ago

        Yeah but now you can’t enjoy the delights of python

    • Caveman
      link
      fedilink
      21 month 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
      1
      edit-2
      1 month 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
        link
        fedilink
        21 month 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.

  • @lobut@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    561 month 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
    32
    edit-2
    1 month 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
    311 month 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.

  • @ssfckdt@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    271 month ago

    Somebody never had a clock with roman numerals and it shows

    I remember getting into an argument with a grade school teacher over IIII because most such clocks put that for 4 instead of IV because of some fuckin reason

    • @Opisek@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      16
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      I despise these so so much. IIII was historically NEVER correct. Some doofus decided to put that on a clock because it looks more symmetrical with the VIII on the other side. Terrible reasoning.

      • @mhague@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        61 month ago

        IIII was the way Romans usually wrote 4. It’s associated with simplicity / illiteracy. But also depended on era, region, intended audience, or practicality. I think the most famous example is the coliseum using LIIII.

        There’s still variation even now; standardization is relatively new, and it’s not common knowledge. And dates… it’s like every 50-100 years people decided to write them differently.

      • “However, even though it is now widely accepted that 4 must be written IV, the original and most ancient pattern for Roman numerals wasn’t the same as what we know today. Earliest models did, in fact, use VIIII for 9 (instead of IX) and IIII for 4 (instead of IV). However, these two numerals proved problematic, they were easily confused with III and VIII. Instead of the original additive notation, the Roman numeral system changed to the more familiar subtractive notation. However, this was well after the fall of the Roman Empire.”

        https://monochrome-watches.com/why-do-clocks-and-watches-use-roman-numeral-iiii-instead-of-iv/

    • naticus
      link
      fedilink
      English
      91 month ago

      Weird, I’ve seen many analog clocks with Roman numerals but always IV for 4.

        • naticus
          link
          fedilink
          English
          31 month ago

          Yeah I looked it up and saw it is a thing, and it’s interesting. I wonder if the clock I’m thinking of was just a really cheap one that was labeled as you’d expect based on Roman numerals or whether some just didn’t follow it.

      • @rumba@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        51 month ago

        To be fair, Google searching Roman numerals clocks give you about a 50/50 distribution.

        I wasn’t aware of this either and I suspect we’re not alone. It’s not highly noticeable and if there’s a 50-50 chance won’t even see it…

        • naticus
          link
          fedilink
          English
          101 month ago

          Your clock having it doesn’t change that mine didn’t.

    • @neonred@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      4
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      No it’s not, with a 12h format on an analog watch you can use the sun to find true north. It is also easier to read it when the hands have double the amount of degrees to indicate the number.

      Edit – digital watches should use 24h, I fully agree, maybe there was a misunderstanding because it’s analog watches we’re talking about here and these could stay 12h IMHO

    • @mhague@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      11 month ago

      It sounds like a joke but I really had someone stop me on the street to ask for the time and when I said 2:30 they asked “AM or PM?” I guess a 24 hour clock would’ve prevented that.

  • @ch00f@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    251 month ago

    Sundials.

    Now if you want to get really pissed, the magnetic North Pole is actually the South Pole of the Earth’s magnetic field. We call it the North Pole because the north side of a magnet points to it.

    • randomblock1
      link
      fedilink
      41 month ago

      Actually, we call it the North Pole because we already had a concept of North from the North Star. Then we invented magnets and decided that the part that points North is the North side of a magnet (despite North Pole being magnetic south).

  • @teslasaur@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    18
    edit-2
    1 month 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
        71 month 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
          61 month 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
          41 month 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
            41 month 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
          4
          edit-2
          1 month 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.

  • Shawdow194
    link
    fedilink
    161 month ago

    Also why clockwise?

    Earth rotates and orbits counter clockwise. It just seems more right

    • Skua
      link
      fedilink
      841 month ago

      To be fair whichever direction they made it go would be clockwise

    • @bdonvr@thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      11
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Earth rotates and orbits counter clockwise.

      No it doesn’t. It depends on the human perception of “up” and “down” which are completely arbitrary. We by convention see the North Pole as the “top” of the world but it could as easily be seen as Antarctica.

    • Well that depends on where you look at the earth from doesn’t it. It’s like saying ‘righty righty, lefty loosey’ which only holds true as long as you’re thinking about the top edge of the screw head.

    • @Stovetop@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      61 month ago

      Well, depending on which hemisphere you’re standing in, at least. We arbitrarily set this idea that north = up in most depictions of the globe, but we could just as easily make Antarctica the top of the world and everything rotates the other way.

      The reason why clockwise is what it is, is because sundials were first used to tell time in the northern hemisphere, where the shadows move clockwise. If it was in the southern hemisphere, they’d have moved counterclockwise (which would be clockwise).

      • @idegenszavak@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        5
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Before the age of exploration, orientation of maps were random. North became the norm so Europe could be placed at the top center.