I don’t like analog clocks. People have tried to persuade me and have shown me the obvious benefits to using such a platform, but I continue to remain unconvinced and I feel that I have good reason for my opinion. I will now present a rather adversarial and controversial view of why analog clocks are inferior to the newer digital clock method of presenting time. This will be a pedantic and antagonistic position.

I am part of a shameful selection of adults who find little value in the modern-day use of the analog clock. I never set it as a goal to find myself in opposition to the existence of the analog clock, but I have to accept now that my continued confusion is likely permanent. I realize that by being in such a slim minority of people in the world that I will likely not find a sympathetic ear, but this will not silence me. I will not self-censor just because such a huge amount of people find no issue with what troubles me. This is the internet, the year 2023, and I am an American white male who has considered making his own podcast. Everything is permitted for me.

What is the appeal of selecting a tool less efficient for the job? Some people like the performative or meditative aspects of many hobbies and tasks, making a point of the time spent on the task compared to its comparatively mindless modern automated method. But for the average user, is the use of an analog clock rooted in art or contemplation, or is it rather on average to find out the time of day?

Perhaps my issue is rooted in the way that I perceive the purpose and working of the analog clock. The average analog clock displays the hours and minutes using two hands, one for each element of time. When one wishes to look at the time on the analog clock, it is performed by looking at both hands and perceiving their proximity to a number or dash running along the edge of the clock’s surface. Both hands must be seen to accurately understand the current time, and the passage of time dynamically changes the position of those information-giving hands throughout the day.

In contrast, a digital clock presents the time in a left-to-right hour:minute pattern that does not change in position, requires no guessing or deciphering of what combination of number/letter/dash refers to the hours and minutes on the face of the clock, and can be shrunk to sizes smaller than an analog clock without obfuscating the detail it is attempting to present.

I usually look at an analog clock in an hour:minute method, which may be my first mistake. I expect to see an hour hand pointing to the current hour, rather than giving me a semi-accurate approximation of the time distance between the current hour and the next. If the time is 7:55, I struggle knowing if the hand is pointing toward the seven or the eight. I then look at the minute hand, which is actually pointing directly at its intended digit instead of being somewhere vague. I usually read that analog clock, then, as “8:55 — wait no, uh, 7:55? Yes, 7:55.”.

Why make an hour hand perform the task of both the hour and minute hand and then include a minute hand whose task is solely to display minutes? Why not have an analog clock that displays one hand over the current actual hour and then have a minute hand point to the current minute? The hour hand is the only hand on the clock, even including the second hand, that doesn’t point to its intended target aside from maybe five minutes in an hour.

It doesn’t make sense to cling to this archaic and inefficient method of timekeeping any longer. Please join me in advocating for this silly aspect of one’s life and becoming a tyrant like I have, externalizing my own weaknesses by moaning about other people’s choices.