So... the minute hand shows progression — apparently we think of time in wildly different ways

I think the digital vs analogue clock is an adjacent, everyday example. On the human scale precise clock maths is rarely necessary, and conceptually thinking of time as a base 60 number can be more trouble than good. Technology Connections has a very good video on this, and completely changed thinking: [VIDEO]

I rather enjoyed the video essay Technology Connections did about the seemingly different mental models of tracking time that come from analog and digital clocks, and how a lot of people now have barely ever experienced analog clocks. [VIDEO]

Not to other people I've talked to. I'm the wrong person to ask this about, since I prefer digital time, so time is just a number to me. But Technology Connections made a video atleast talking about it,[1] so hopefully that get part of the point across. To him and plenty of other analogue-first people, time is a progress bar, or a chart, or something along those lines, and that's the natural way to perceive time, and converting it to a number is meaningless beyond expressing it as digital time. [1] [VIDEO]

>What benefit is there to keep this antiquated method around, aside from just as an historical reference? Analogue clocks are, by design, also visual progress bars. Digital clocks just give you the time. There's a little video talking about this by Technology Connections: [VIDEO]

Technology Connections did a really great video on this a few years ago. [VIDEO] Apparently being raised with analog clocks vs digital changes how one intuits the passage of time.

Related: different people think of time different ways. I myself have never liked analog clocks because they require a conversion to make sense . Technology Connections made a video about this: [VIDEO] And another thing: I considered trying 28-hour days because my sleeping schedule always drifts. A 28-hour clock that's in sync with me sleeping would be nice if I ever do try that.