I hope we use our Brexit freedoms to allow the Cybertruck on UK roads.
The Tesla Cybertruck is too big and too dangerous for European roads, transport campaigners have warned.
There is confusion about whether the Cybertruck could be driven in Europe because of strict road safety rules. These ban sharp edges and require speed limiters on vehicles that weigh more than 3.5 tonnes.
Tesla says the vehicle weighs four tonnes, compared with about two tonnes for normal family cars. In a letter to the European Commission campaign groups called for Cybertrucks to be removed from public roads.
Including flights and accommodation I might just have crept over my £400 Geneva budget
If you are of a certain mindset, you might find yourself getting a little obsessed with metrics. "I must beat my step count!!!" is a beginners=level one.
Enjoy Geneva.
These things are amazeybollox
It’s like having a little genie tugging at your arm. “Don’t miss your flight!”
Did you miss many flights without it?
I find people who actually enjoy being buzzed by constant notifications very weird - my phone is permanently on silent - and even weirder when people enjoy constant notifications on the wrist.
Sort of like how it suddenly became acceptable to use your phone at the dinner table in the late 2000s. The idea that you're less present and in the moment and more attached to the tech that's telling you what to do or how to behave.
If I live to be 180, I will still never own a "smart" watch. My watch tells the time. Nothing more, nothing less.
And if that works for you, cool.
Alerts are configurable. Just about everything on such watches (Garmin, Apple or whatever...) is configurable. Mrs J has her watch much more tightly tied down (not linked to any other accounts) than I have.
Oh, I get it. Leon absolutely nails it when he says smart watches are for centrist dads. They are for MAMIL types who obsess over their step count, or how much REM sleep they got last night. People who will bore you about their gore-tex clobber they bought for their latest hike across the peaks. They have a catchment, and more power to the people who enjoy them. Nothing wrong with being a MAMIL who's into gore-tex. Many of my friends are. But I prefer a life without being buzzed, or tracked.
I was thinking about the Tory guy who was wearing a rolex in the winter fuel allowance video the other day. Datejusts were de rigeur for men in their 30s/40s in the 80s, which is why they are such an old man watch now. There are photos of datejusts with their early 80s price tags still attached - about £600. But a watch like that will travel through time with you, and be something you can pass along to your children - while during the same number of years, between eight and twenty iterations of the Apple SmartWatch will be thrown on a landfill somewhere. They are, to me, distinctly mid.
I still have my grandfather's watch, and while it's worthless, it tells the time well enough. It will be ticking along long after I am dead. There is something romantic about time and timelessness, which watches provide, while smart watches - dead or obsolete in a few years - do not. I'm in love with the romance of watches, which makes me just as odd as a MAMIL obsessed with his step count. But I find no romance in smart watches, which are disposable bits of kit, as opposed to marvels of mechanical engineering or heirlooms to be passed from father to son.
As I say, nothing wrong with smart watches - they're just not for me.
That's quite an entertaining rant, except for the fact you can use these watches as just watches to tell the time, with no tracking, stepcounts etc. from memory, on Garmin at least, you need to enable much of this stuff. (Apple may be different).
And before you say that you're paying a lot for 'just a watch'; just look at Rolex et al.
You seem personally insulted, despite the fact I go out of my way to point out it's horses for courses all the way through.
I'm a watch collector (a nerd?! on PB? never!) and would never own a smartwatch. As I say, I'm in love with the romance of the history, the mechanical engineering, and so on. A less kind analysis would say that watches are to men what handbags are to women. Though most of my watches are in the £250-1500 bracket, save for a couple of grail pieces.
I gain no pleasure from having my body functions tracked via my wrist or having notifications appear on it while I'm at dinner. I do like the idea that some of the watches I have I will have worn for sixty or more years before I die, and have watches that my forefathers owned. But as I say, it's horses for courses. If your smartwatch gives you pleasure, wear it.
I have said for a long time that Cleverly is the Tories' best option. It seems very, very obvious to me. So what is the case against him? There must be one.
He's not the brightest.
Since when was that a political impediment ?
I'd say it still is even in these strange times. You need a good brain to present as a viable PM. That was Corbyn's biggest problem imo.
I hope we use our Brexit freedoms to allow the Cybertruck on UK roads.
The Tesla Cybertruck is too big and too dangerous for European roads, transport campaigners have warned.
There is confusion about whether the Cybertruck could be driven in Europe because of strict road safety rules. These ban sharp edges and require speed limiters on vehicles that weigh more than 3.5 tonnes.
Tesla says the vehicle weighs four tonnes, compared with about two tonnes for normal family cars. In a letter to the European Commission campaign groups called for Cybertrucks to be removed from public roads.
Are they trying to ship them here because they can't get insurance in the US?
GEICO informed some Tesla Cybertruck owners that it would not be renewing insurance for the monstrous electric vehicles, claiming the oft-recalled trucks are not up to their standards.
The sudden change in policy was first detailed by Robert Stevenson, a Tesla Cybertruck owner, who tweeted, “@GEICO said they can no longer insure my Cybertruck.”
Harris is getting a huge historic lead in white college graduates in the latest polling:
Clinton achieved +5% margin Biden achieved +9% margin Harris has a poll showing +18% margin
Biggest margin ever recorded.
(Source CNN)
I'm seeing many times more pro-Trump/anti-Harris stuff on Twix than I am anti-Trump/pro-Harris. This is despite me being more on the pro-Harris side.
It'll be interesting to see if this election is a case of those who make the most noise, having least effect. Or if the noise matters.
That's because TwiX prioritizes engagement, and you are more likely to engage with (i.e. respond to) things you disagree with.
It's why I see Marjory Taylor Green stuff all the time.
The algo seems to have changed massively in the last couple of days, though.
Until then my "for you" feed was pretty useful. All of a sudden, it's a mix of 90% shit and right wing trolls with production related stuff. I'd not changed anything.
It's as though Musk is using it as a campaign tool.
I suspect that what Elon thinks is persuasive is likely to have to opposite effect! Being shown Marjorie Taylor Green "Democrats control the hurricanes" doesn't make me more likely to vote Republican, it makes me more likely to head down to the polling booth because people that crazy shouldn't be in power.
Thanks to MarqueeMark for bringing these to my attention.
I find the partisan split over early voting just bizarre.
Obviously Trump telling his cult not to do it for years is a factor. But must be more than that?
Dems are more time organized? Dems hate queuing on the day? GOP don't trust the mail as much as Dems? GOP feel it is more 'real' to do in person?
Just a head scratcher.
The partisan story I've heard over the years is that GOP officials have closed more polling places in urban (i.e. Democrat) areas, so that Democrat voters have to queue for longer to vote -> this provides more incentive for Democrats to vote early.
Meanwhile Republicans in rural precincts still have polling stations for relatively small numbers of people (partly because they're more spread out) and so voting on the day doesn't involve a huge queue.
It also means it's much more important for Democrats to vote early, so that they don't lose their vote by having to leave the queue to return to work if they leave it to polling day.
So it would be a disaster if Democrats were not voting early in large numbers, but that they are doing so doesn't tell you anything about the relative enthusiasm of Republicans to go out and vote on the day.
It is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for a Democrat victory.
So at work we're getting an updated intranet and on our profile we need to come up with a one sentence biography, stupidly I let my staff do mine, and they've shortlisted my bio to the following
1) Jimmy Carr's spirit animal
2) The embodiment of more money than sense
3) He is who the likes of Elon Musk, Rupert Murdoch, Logan Roy, and Harvey Weinstein call when they are in trouble.
I have said for a long time that Cleverly is the Tories' best option. It seems very, very obvious to me. So what is the case against him? There must be one.
He's not the brightest.
He'll be a centrist plodder when they need to roll the dice is a case against him I guess.
He's not that centrist. He backed Brexit, Boris and Truss before (and after) it was strictly necessary.
As with Sunak, the fact that he's now seen as a centrist says more about the Conservative Party than it does about Cleverly.
But he's not Jenrick (tawdry) or Badenoch (very likely to start an unnecessary fight by saying something she doesn't entirely mean). "Best of a bad bunch" strikes again.
Yes, but I suspect that Labour will realise that he looks quite refreshing compared with the already stale Sir Keir Freebie. Cleverly also seems like a nice bloke which is again a good contrast with Toolmakerson
I hope we use our Brexit freedoms to allow the Cybertruck on UK roads.
The Tesla Cybertruck is too big and too dangerous for European roads, transport campaigners have warned.
There is confusion about whether the Cybertruck could be driven in Europe because of strict road safety rules. These ban sharp edges and require speed limiters on vehicles that weigh more than 3.5 tonnes.
Tesla says the vehicle weighs four tonnes, compared with about two tonnes for normal family cars. In a letter to the European Commission campaign groups called for Cybertrucks to be removed from public roads.
So at work we're getting an updated intranet and on our profile we need to come up with a one sentence biography, stupidly I let my staff do mine, and they've shortlisted my bio to the following
1) Jimmy Carr's spirit animal
2) The embodiment of more money than sense
3) He is who the likes of Elon Musk, Rupert Murdoch, Logan Roy, and Harvey Weinstein call when they are in trouble.
I feel a call to HR needs to be made.
Surely 3) is a high compliment for a lawyer?
After all the biggest villians need the best legal team.
Thanks to MarqueeMark for bringing these to my attention.
I find the partisan split over early voting just bizarre.
Obviously Trump telling his cult not to do it for years is a factor. But must be more than that?
Dems are more time organized? Dems hate queuing on the day? GOP don't trust the mail as much as Dems? GOP feel it is more 'real' to do in person?
Just a head scratcher.
The partisan story I've heard over the years is that GOP officials have closed more polling places in urban (i.e. Democrat) areas, so that Democrat voters have to queue for longer to vote -> this provides more incentive for Democrats to vote early.
Meanwhile Republicans in rural precincts still have polling stations for relatively small numbers of people (partly because they're more spread out) and so voting on the day doesn't involve a huge queue.
It also means it's much more important for Democrats to vote early, so that they don't lose their vote by having to leave the queue to return to work if they leave it to polling day.
So it would be a disaster if Democrats were not voting early in large numbers, but that they are doing so doesn't tell you anything about the relative enthusiasm of Republicans to go out and vote on the day.
It is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for a Democrat victory.
Maybe, but in Potus elections past EVs have proven a very good predictor of the result.
2020 should probably be discounted due to Trump's bizarre campaign to dissuade his own voters from early voting (although this time he is encouraging them – and it doesn't seem to be working, yet).
A comparison of the current PA numbers with the equivalent in Obama-Romney 2012 would be fascinating.
I hope we use our Brexit freedoms to allow the Cybertruck on UK roads.
The Tesla Cybertruck is too big and too dangerous for European roads, transport campaigners have warned.
There is confusion about whether the Cybertruck could be driven in Europe because of strict road safety rules. These ban sharp edges and require speed limiters on vehicles that weigh more than 3.5 tonnes.
Tesla says the vehicle weighs four tonnes, compared with about two tonnes for normal family cars. In a letter to the European Commission campaign groups called for Cybertrucks to be removed from public roads.
Are they trying to ship them here because they can't get insurance in the US?
GEICO informed some Tesla Cybertruck owners that it would not be renewing insurance for the monstrous electric vehicles, claiming the oft-recalled trucks are not up to their standards.
The sudden change in policy was first detailed by Robert Stevenson, a Tesla Cybertruck owner, who tweeted, “@GEICO said they can no longer insure my Cybertruck.”
We don't insure Cybertrucks. Not because of anything anti-Elon, but simply because there's no history of exactly how much damage they cause when they get into accidents, and so we can't price it properly. Given how big and heavy they are, we're just going to err on the side of caution.
So at work we're getting an updated intranet and on our profile we need to come up with a one sentence biography, stupidly I let my staff do mine, and they've shortlisted my bio to the following
1) Jimmy Carr's spirit animal
2) The embodiment of more money than sense
3) He is who the likes of Elon Musk, Rupert Murdoch, Logan Roy, and Harvey Weinstein call when they are in trouble.
I feel a call to HR needs to be made.
Yeh, ridiculous. One of the people in 3 is fictitious! Definitely call in HR.
Harris is getting a huge historic lead in white college graduates in the latest polling:
Clinton achieved +5% margin Biden achieved +9% margin Harris has a poll showing +18% margin
Biggest margin ever recorded.
(Source CNN)
I'm seeing many times more pro-Trump/anti-Harris stuff on Twix than I am anti-Trump/pro-Harris. This is despite me being more on the pro-Harris side.
It'll be interesting to see if this election is a case of those who make the most noise, having least effect. Or if the noise matters.
That's because TwiX prioritizes engagement, and you are more likely to engage with (i.e. respond to) things you disagree with.
It's why I see Marjory Taylor Green stuff all the time.
The algo seems to have changed massively in the last couple of days, though.
Until then my "for you" feed was pretty useful. All of a sudden, it's a mix of 90% shit and right wing trolls with production related stuff. I'd not changed anything.
It's as though Musk is using it as a campaign tool.
I suspect that what Elon thinks is persuasive is likely to have to opposite effect! Being shown Marjorie Taylor Green "Democrats control the hurricanes" doesn't make me more likely to vote Republican, it makes me more likely to head down to the polling booth because people that crazy shouldn't be in power.
Musk was downright embarrassing at that latest Trump rally. I hope for his sake he's compartmentalising rather than expressing his true urges.
I hope we use our Brexit freedoms to allow the Cybertruck on UK roads.
The Tesla Cybertruck is too big and too dangerous for European roads, transport campaigners have warned.
There is confusion about whether the Cybertruck could be driven in Europe because of strict road safety rules. These ban sharp edges and require speed limiters on vehicles that weigh more than 3.5 tonnes.
Tesla says the vehicle weighs four tonnes, compared with about two tonnes for normal family cars. In a letter to the European Commission campaign groups called for Cybertrucks to be removed from public roads.
It's a dangerous abortion of a design and it 1000 of them need to be rammed up Elon Muck's anal passage.
It would be a quick death, at least, with those sharp edges. Not like a usual SUV where you get crushed underneath.
Then he'll get a Golden Darwin Award as well.
4 tonnes is an extraordinary weight for a passenger vehicle. Does it mean anyone under about the age of 45 can't drive it because of their license ?
That’s not the gross weight, that’s the empty weight!
Yes, you would need to do another driving test in the UK.
Only if you're under about 45 IIRC - we removed the right to drive luton tail-lifts and so on to harmonise with EU license laws, but it's baked in up to 7 tons (?) if you're old enough.
I have said for a long time that Cleverly is the Tories' best option. It seems very, very obvious to me. So what is the case against him? There must be one.
He's not the brightest.
Since when was that a political impediment ?
I'd say it still is even in these strange times. You need a good brain to present as a viable PM. That was Corbyn's biggest problem imo.
Yes, but Corbyn really was very stupid, and also I think all this bollox about Cleverly not being bright is from those who think we should only ever have PMs from Oxford, as though that were a measure of intellect ffs!
I have said for a long time that Cleverly is the Tories' best option. It seems very, very obvious to me. So what is the case against him? There must be one.
He's not the brightest.
He'll be a centrist plodder when they need to roll the dice is a case against him I guess.
He's not that centrist. He backed Brexit, Boris and Truss before (and after) it was strictly necessary.
As with Sunak, the fact that he's now seen as a centrist says more about the Conservative Party than it does about Cleverly.
But he's not Jenrick (tawdry) or Badenoch (very likely to start an unnecessary fight by saying something she doesn't entirely mean). "Best of a bad bunch" strikes again.
Yes, but I suspect that Labour will realise that he looks quite refreshing compared with the already stale Sir Keir Freebie. Cleverly also seems like a nice bloke which is again a good contrast with Toolmakerson
Of the longlist, he is definitely the best bet, for the reasons you give. The Conservatives would be chumps not to choose him. We have to see if it's necessary to insert a witticism there.
Thanks to MarqueeMark for bringing these to my attention.
I find the partisan split over early voting just bizarre.
Obviously Trump telling his cult not to do it for years is a factor. But must be more than that?
Dems are more time organized? Dems hate queuing on the day? GOP don't trust the mail as much as Dems? GOP feel it is more 'real' to do in person?
Just a head scratcher.
The partisan story I've heard over the years is that GOP officials have closed more polling places in urban (i.e. Democrat) areas, so that Democrat voters have to queue for longer to vote -> this provides more incentive for Democrats to vote early.
Meanwhile Republicans in rural precincts still have polling stations for relatively small numbers of people (partly because they're more spread out) and so voting on the day doesn't involve a huge queue.
It also means it's much more important for Democrats to vote early, so that they don't lose their vote by having to leave the queue to return to work if they leave it to polling day.
So it would be a disaster if Democrats were not voting early in large numbers, but that they are doing so doesn't tell you anything about the relative enthusiasm of Republicans to go out and vote on the day.
It is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for a Democrat victory.
Yes but the delta this time vs previous could be meaningful.
I hope we use our Brexit freedoms to allow the Cybertruck on UK roads.
The Tesla Cybertruck is too big and too dangerous for European roads, transport campaigners have warned.
There is confusion about whether the Cybertruck could be driven in Europe because of strict road safety rules. These ban sharp edges and require speed limiters on vehicles that weigh more than 3.5 tonnes.
Tesla says the vehicle weighs four tonnes, compared with about two tonnes for normal family cars. In a letter to the European Commission campaign groups called for Cybertrucks to be removed from public roads.
It's a dangerous abortion of a design and it 1000 of them need to be rammed up Elon Muck's anal passage.
It would be a quick death, at least, with those sharp edges. Not like a usual SUV where you get crushed underneath.
Then he'll get a Golden Darwin Award as well.
4 tonnes is an extraordinary weight for a passenger vehicle. Does it mean anyone under about the age of 45 can't drive it because of their license ?
That’s not the gross weight, that’s the empty weight!
Yes, you would need to do another driving test in the UK.
Only if you're under about 45 IIRC - we removed the right to drive luton tail-lifts and so on to harmonise with EU license laws, but it's baked in up to 7 tons (?) if you're old enough.
Yes the rules changed in 1996, reducing the vehicle you can drive with a standard car licence from 7.5t to 3.5t. If you passed your test in 1995, as myself and @TheScreamingEagles did, you get grandfather rights. If you’re @Pulpstar and a few months younger, you have to do another test in a 7.5t truck to be allowed to drive one.
I have said for a long time that Cleverly is the Tories' best option. It seems very, very obvious to me. So what is the case against him? There must be one.
He's not the brightest.
Since when was that a political impediment ?
I'd say it still is even in these strange times. You need a good brain to present as a viable PM. That was Corbyn's biggest problem imo.
Yes, but Corbyn really was very stupid, and also I think all this bollox about Cleverly not being bright is from those who think we should only ever have PMs from Oxford, as though that were a measure of intellect ffs!
Well it's not that with me. I haven't checked his academics. He just comes over to me as intellectually sluggish.
Including flights and accommodation I might just have crept over my £400 Geneva budget
If you are of a certain mindset, you might find yourself getting a little obsessed with metrics. "I must beat my step count!!!" is a beginners=level one.
Enjoy Geneva.
These things are amazeybollox
It’s like having a little genie tugging at your arm. “Don’t miss your flight!”
Did you miss many flights without it?
I find people who actually enjoy being buzzed by constant notifications very weird - my phone is permanently on silent - and even weirder when people enjoy constant notifications on the wrist.
Sort of like how it suddenly became acceptable to use your phone at the dinner table in the late 2000s. The idea that you're less present and in the moment and more attached to the tech that's telling you what to do or how to behave.
If I live to be 180, I will still never own a "smart" watch. My watch tells the time. Nothing more, nothing less.
And if that works for you, cool.
Alerts are configurable. Just about everything on such watches (Garmin, Apple or whatever...) is configurable. Mrs J has her watch much more tightly tied down (not linked to any other accounts) than I have.
Oh, I get it. Leon absolutely nails it when he says smart watches are for centrist dads. They are for MAMIL types who obsess over their step count, or how much REM sleep they got last night. People who will bore you about their gore-tex clobber they bought for their latest hike across the peaks. They have a catchment, and more power to the people who enjoy them. Nothing wrong with being a MAMIL who's into gore-tex. Many of my friends are. But I prefer a life without being buzzed, or tracked.
I was thinking about the Tory guy who was wearing a rolex in the winter fuel allowance video the other day. Datejusts were de rigeur for men in their 30s/40s in the 80s, which is why they are such an old man watch now. There are photos of datejusts with their early 80s price tags still attached - about £600. But a watch like that will travel through time with you, and be something you can pass along to your children - while during the same number of years, between eight and twenty iterations of the Apple SmartWatch will be thrown on a landfill somewhere. They are, to me, distinctly mid.
I still have my grandfather's watch, and while it's worthless, it tells the time well enough. It will be ticking along long after I am dead. There is something romantic about time and timelessness, which watches provide, while smart watches - dead or obsolete in a few years - do not. I'm in love with the romance of watches, which makes me just as odd as a MAMIL obsessed with his step count. But I find no romance in smart watches, which are disposable bits of kit, as opposed to marvels of mechanical engineering or heirlooms to be passed from father to son.
As I say, nothing wrong with smart watches - they're just not for me.
That's quite an entertaining rant, except for the fact you can use these watches as just watches to tell the time, with no tracking, stepcounts etc. from memory, on Garmin at least, you need to enable much of this stuff. (Apple may be different).
And before you say that you're paying a lot for 'just a watch'; just look at Rolex et al.
You seem personally insulted, despite the fact I go out of my way to point out it's horses for courses all the way through.
I'm a watch collector (a nerd?! on PB? never!) and would never own a smartwatch. As I say, I'm in love with the romance of the history, the mechanical engineering, and so on. A less kind analysis would say that watches are to men what handbags are to women. Though most of my watches are in the £250-1500 bracket, save for a couple of grail pieces.
I gain no pleasure from having my body functions tracked via my wrist or having notifications appear on it while I'm at dinner. I do like the idea that some of the watches I have I will have worn for sixty or more years before I die, and have watches that my forefathers owned. But as I say, it's horses for courses. If your smartwatch gives you pleasure, wear it.
I do not own a Rolex.
I have a fitbit tracker thing in my right wrist and a fancier watch for my left wrist and a pocket watch from my wife for our marriage. I even have a pocket sundial (not so useful in Ireland). I'd love to collect a few more fancy mechanical watches. I might upgrade to a fancier hiking smartwatch at some point.
I don't see any conflict between the two types of devices.
I have said for a long time that Cleverly is the Tories' best option. It seems very, very obvious to me. So what is the case against him? There must be one.
He's not the brightest.
He'll be a centrist plodder when they need to roll the dice is a case against him I guess.
He's not that centrist. He backed Brexit, Boris and Truss before (and after) it was strictly necessary.
As with Sunak, the fact that he's now seen as a centrist says more about the Conservative Party than it does about Cleverly.
But he's not Jenrick (tawdry) or Badenoch (very likely to start an unnecessary fight by saying something she doesn't entirely mean). "Best of a bad bunch" strikes again.
Yes, but I suspect that Labour will realise that he looks quite refreshing compared with the already stale Sir Keir Freebie. Cleverly also seems like a nice bloke which is again a good contrast with Toolmakerson
Of the longlist, he is definitely the best bet, for the reasons you give. The Conservatives would be chumps not to choose him. We have to see if it's necessary to insert a witticism there.
I have said for a long time that Cleverly is the Tories' best option. It seems very, very obvious to me. So what is the case against him? There must be one.
He's not the brightest.
Since when was that a political impediment ?
I'd say it still is even in these strange times. You need a good brain to present as a viable PM. That was Corbyn's biggest problem imo.
Yes, but Corbyn really was very stupid, and also I think all this bollox about Cleverly not being bright is from those who think we should only ever have PMs from Oxford, as though that were a measure of intellect ffs!
Well it's not that with me. I haven't checked his academics. He just comes over to me as intellectually sluggish.
I have said for a long time that Cleverly is the Tories' best option. It seems very, very obvious to me. So what is the case against him? There must be one.
He's not the brightest.
Since when was that a political impediment ?
I'd say it still is even in these strange times. You need a good brain to present as a viable PM. That was Corbyn's biggest problem imo.
Yes, but Corbyn really was very stupid, and also I think all this bollox about Cleverly not being bright is from those who think we should only ever have PMs from Oxford, as though that were a measure of intellect ffs!
Well it's not that with me. I haven't checked his academics. He just comes over to me as intellectually sluggish.
Subconscious bias?
No, I don't have that, Nigel. Only person on earth who doesn't.
Including flights and accommodation I might just have crept over my £400 Geneva budget
If you are of a certain mindset, you might find yourself getting a little obsessed with metrics. "I must beat my step count!!!" is a beginners=level one.
Enjoy Geneva.
These things are amazeybollox
It’s like having a little genie tugging at your arm. “Don’t miss your flight!”
Did you miss many flights without it?
I find people who actually enjoy being buzzed by constant notifications very weird - my phone is permanently on silent - and even weirder when people enjoy constant notifications on the wrist.
Sort of like how it suddenly became acceptable to use your phone at the dinner table in the late 2000s. The idea that you're less present and in the moment and more attached to the tech that's telling you what to do or how to behave.
If I live to be 180, I will still never own a "smart" watch. My watch tells the time. Nothing more, nothing less.
And if that works for you, cool.
Alerts are configurable. Just about everything on such watches (Garmin, Apple or whatever...) is configurable. Mrs J has her watch much more tightly tied down (not linked to any other accounts) than I have.
Oh, I get it. Leon absolutely nails it when he says smart watches are for centrist dads. They are for MAMIL types who obsess over their step count, or how much REM sleep they got last night. People who will bore you about their gore-tex clobber they bought for their latest hike across the peaks. They have a catchment, and more power to the people who enjoy them. Nothing wrong with being a MAMIL who's into gore-tex. Many of my friends are. But I prefer a life without being buzzed, or tracked.
I was thinking about the Tory guy who was wearing a rolex in the winter fuel allowance video the other day. Datejusts were de rigeur for men in their 30s/40s in the 80s, which is why they are such an old man watch now. There are photos of datejusts with their early 80s price tags still attached - about £600. But a watch like that will travel through time with you, and be something you can pass along to your children - while during the same number of years, between eight and twenty iterations of the Apple SmartWatch will be thrown on a landfill somewhere. They are, to me, distinctly mid.
I still have my grandfather's watch, and while it's worthless, it tells the time well enough. It will be ticking along long after I am dead. There is something romantic about time and timelessness, which watches provide, while smart watches - dead or obsolete in a few years - do not. I'm in love with the romance of watches, which makes me just as odd as a MAMIL obsessed with his step count. But I find no romance in smart watches, which are disposable bits of kit, as opposed to marvels of mechanical engineering or heirlooms to be passed from father to son.
As I say, nothing wrong with smart watches - they're just not for me.
That's quite an entertaining rant, except for the fact you can use these watches as just watches to tell the time, with no tracking, stepcounts etc. from memory, on Garmin at least, you need to enable much of this stuff. (Apple may be different).
And before you say that you're paying a lot for 'just a watch'; just look at Rolex et al.
You seem personally insulted, despite the fact I go out of my way to point out it's horses for courses all the way through.
I'm a watch collector (a nerd?! on PB? never!) and would never own a smartwatch. As I say, I'm in love with the romance of the history, the mechanical engineering, and so on. A less kind analysis would say that watches are to men what handbags are to women. Though most of my watches are in the £250-1500 bracket, save for a couple of grail pieces.
I gain no pleasure from having my body functions tracked via my wrist or having notifications appear on it while I'm at dinner. I do like the idea that some of the watches I have I will have worn for sixty or more years before I die, and have watches that my forefathers owned. But as I say, it's horses for courses. If your smartwatch gives you pleasure, wear it.
I do not own a Rolex.
I have a fitbit tracker thing in my right wrist and a fancier watch for my left wrist and a pocket watch from my wife for our marriage. I even have a pocket sundial (not so useful in Ireland). I'd love to collect a few more fancy mechanical watches. I might upgrade to a fancier hiking smartwatch at some point.
I don't see any conflict between the two types of devices.
Including flights and accommodation I might just have crept over my £400 Geneva budget
If you are of a certain mindset, you might find yourself getting a little obsessed with metrics. "I must beat my step count!!!" is a beginners=level one.
Enjoy Geneva.
These things are amazeybollox
It’s like having a little genie tugging at your arm. “Don’t miss your flight!”
Did you miss many flights without it?
I find people who actually enjoy being buzzed by constant notifications very weird - my phone is permanently on silent - and even weirder when people enjoy constant notifications on the wrist.
Sort of like how it suddenly became acceptable to use your phone at the dinner table in the late 2000s. The idea that you're less present and in the moment and more attached to the tech that's telling you what to do or how to behave.
If I live to be 180, I will still never own a "smart" watch. My watch tells the time. Nothing more, nothing less.
And if that works for you, cool.
Alerts are configurable. Just about everything on such watches (Garmin, Apple or whatever...) is configurable. Mrs J has her watch much more tightly tied down (not linked to any other accounts) than I have.
Oh, I get it. Leon absolutely nails it when he says smart watches are for centrist dads. They are for MAMIL types who obsess over their step count, or how much REM sleep they got last night. People who will bore you about their gore-tex clobber they bought for their latest hike across the peaks. They have a catchment, and more power to the people who enjoy them. Nothing wrong with being a MAMIL who's into gore-tex. Many of my friends are. But I prefer a life without being buzzed, or tracked.
I was thinking about the Tory guy who was wearing a rolex in the winter fuel allowance video the other day. Datejusts were de rigeur for men in their 30s/40s in the 80s, which is why they are such an old man watch now. There are photos of datejusts with their early 80s price tags still attached - about £600. But a watch like that will travel through time with you, and be something you can pass along to your children - while during the same number of years, between eight and twenty iterations of the Apple SmartWatch will be thrown on a landfill somewhere. They are, to me, distinctly mid.
I still have my grandfather's watch, and while it's worthless, it tells the time well enough. It will be ticking along long after I am dead. There is something romantic about time and timelessness, which watches provide, while smart watches - dead or obsolete in a few years - do not. I'm in love with the romance of watches, which makes me just as odd as a MAMIL obsessed with his step count. But I find no romance in smart watches, which are disposable bits of kit, as opposed to marvels of mechanical engineering or heirlooms to be passed from father to son.
As I say, nothing wrong with smart watches - they're just not for me.
That's quite an entertaining rant, except for the fact you can use these watches as just watches to tell the time, with no tracking, stepcounts etc. from memory, on Garmin at least, you need to enable much of this stuff. (Apple may be different).
And before you say that you're paying a lot for 'just a watch'; just look at Rolex et al.
You seem personally insulted, despite the fact I go out of my way to point out it's horses for courses all the way through.
I'm a watch collector (a nerd?! on PB? never!) and would never own a smartwatch. As I say, I'm in love with the romance of the history, the mechanical engineering, and so on. A less kind analysis would say that watches are to men what handbags are to women. Though most of my watches are in the £250-1500 bracket, save for a couple of grail pieces.
I gain no pleasure from having my body functions tracked via my wrist or having notifications appear on it while I'm at dinner. I do like the idea that some of the watches I have I will have worn for sixty or more years before I die, and have watches that my forefathers owned. But as I say, it's horses for courses. If your smartwatch gives you pleasure, wear it.
I do not own a Rolex.
I have a fitbit tracker thing in my right wrist and a fancier watch for my left wrist and a pocket watch from my wife for our marriage. I even have a pocket sundial (not so useful in Ireland). I'd love to collect a few more fancy mechanical watches. I might upgrade to a fancier hiking smartwatch at some point.
I don't see any conflict between the two types of devices.
Absolutely - good compromise, that! If I ever felt the need to track my heart rate etc that's what I would do, too.
I totally see why people who value the functionality of a smartwatch rave about them. But I wouldn't wear one to a black tie do (the last black tie do I went to, I wore a £150 Orient Bambino).
To those who don't see the sentimentality in mechanical watches or the history in them, I ask you - would Christopher Walken have stuffed a Garmin up his ass and kept it there for two years to make sure it was passed down to Bruce Willis?
Including flights and accommodation I might just have crept over my £400 Geneva budget
If you are of a certain mindset, you might find yourself getting a little obsessed with metrics. "I must beat my step count!!!" is a beginners=level one.
Enjoy Geneva.
These things are amazeybollox
It’s like having a little genie tugging at your arm. “Don’t miss your flight!”
Did you miss many flights without it?
I find people who actually enjoy being buzzed by constant notifications very weird - my phone is permanently on silent - and even weirder when people enjoy constant notifications on the wrist.
Sort of like how it suddenly became acceptable to use your phone at the dinner table in the late 2000s. The idea that you're less present and in the moment and more attached to the tech that's telling you what to do or how to behave.
If I live to be 180, I will still never own a "smart" watch. My watch tells the time. Nothing more, nothing less.
And if that works for you, cool.
Alerts are configurable. Just about everything on such watches (Garmin, Apple or whatever...) is configurable. Mrs J has her watch much more tightly tied down (not linked to any other accounts) than I have.
Oh, I get it. Leon absolutely nails it when he says smart watches are for centrist dads. They are for MAMIL types who obsess over their step count, or how much REM sleep they got last night. People who will bore you about their gore-tex clobber they bought for their latest hike across the peaks. They have a catchment, and more power to the people who enjoy them. Nothing wrong with being a MAMIL who's into gore-tex. Many of my friends are. But I prefer a life without being buzzed, or tracked.
I was thinking about the Tory guy who was wearing a rolex in the winter fuel allowance video the other day. Datejusts were de rigeur for men in their 30s/40s in the 80s, which is why they are such an old man watch now. There are photos of datejusts with their early 80s price tags still attached - about £600. But a watch like that will travel through time with you, and be something you can pass along to your children - while during the same number of years, between eight and twenty iterations of the Apple SmartWatch will be thrown on a landfill somewhere. They are, to me, distinctly mid.
I still have my grandfather's watch, and while it's worthless, it tells the time well enough. It will be ticking along long after I am dead. There is something romantic about time and timelessness, which watches provide, while smart watches - dead or obsolete in a few years - do not. I'm in love with the romance of watches, which makes me just as odd as a MAMIL obsessed with his step count. But I find no romance in smart watches, which are disposable bits of kit, as opposed to marvels of mechanical engineering or heirlooms to be passed from father to son.
As I say, nothing wrong with smart watches - they're just not for me.
That's quite an entertaining rant, except for the fact you can use these watches as just watches to tell the time, with no tracking, stepcounts etc. from memory, on Garmin at least, you need to enable much of this stuff. (Apple may be different).
And before you say that you're paying a lot for 'just a watch'; just look at Rolex et al.
You seem personally insulted, despite the fact I go out of my way to point out it's horses for courses all the way through.
I'm a watch collector (a nerd?! on PB? never!) and would never own a smartwatch. As I say, I'm in love with the romance of the history, the mechanical engineering, and so on. A less kind analysis would say that watches are to men what handbags are to women. Though most of my watches are in the £250-1500 bracket, save for a couple of grail pieces.
I gain no pleasure from having my body functions tracked via my wrist or having notifications appear on it while I'm at dinner. I do like the idea that some of the watches I have I will have worn for sixty or more years before I die, and have watches that my forefathers owned. But as I say, it's horses for courses. If your smartwatch gives you pleasure, wear it.
I do not own a Rolex.
"Personally insulted" ???
LOL. I'm saying exactly the opposite. I don't care what other people use; if a wrist-worn sundial works for you, or a tin-can phone connected to the speaking clock made by your five year-old child.
*for me*, my Garmin works well.
BTW, some people also collect 'old' electronics, in the same way you collect mechanical watches. Some people even collect digital watches, as you probably know. And yes, there's a romance to the history, the mechanical, electronic and software engineering, etc, etc.
As for 'Gen Z': they might change their mind when the middle-aged spread comes along and they realise they need to lose a few kilos.
I hope we use our Brexit freedoms to allow the Cybertruck on UK roads.
The Tesla Cybertruck is too big and too dangerous for European roads, transport campaigners have warned.
There is confusion about whether the Cybertruck could be driven in Europe because of strict road safety rules. These ban sharp edges and require speed limiters on vehicles that weigh more than 3.5 tonnes.
Tesla says the vehicle weighs four tonnes, compared with about two tonnes for normal family cars. In a letter to the European Commission campaign groups called for Cybertrucks to be removed from public roads.
I have said for a long time that Cleverly is the Tories' best option. It seems very, very obvious to me. So what is the case against him? There must be one.
Making jokes about date raping his wife doesn't exactly suggest good judgment. He also had the Stockton shithole thing. Loose cannon.
He does rather seem to have a penchant for making clangers
Did Jenrick blow it with a conference speech that was too right-wing? Didn't watch it myself.
Also Clever Jimmy taking on a raft of MP supporters after he eviscerated Lammy and Labour over their Chagos capitulation.
"Nothing to do with me Guv!"
That's kind of why none of these people will end up as PM. We know they are chancers and frankly not qualified for even minor public office. They are clerks, not visionaries.
I have said for a long time that Cleverly is the Tories' best option. It seems very, very obvious to me. So what is the case against him? There must be one.
Harris is getting a huge historic lead in white college graduates in the latest polling:
Clinton achieved +5% margin Biden achieved +9% margin Harris has a poll showing +18% margin
Biggest margin ever recorded.
(Source CNN)
I'm seeing many times more pro-Trump/anti-Harris stuff on Twix than I am anti-Trump/pro-Harris. This is despite me being more on the pro-Harris side.
It'll be interesting to see if this election is a case of those who make the most noise, having least effect. Or if the noise matters.
That's because TwiX prioritizes engagement, and you are more likely to engage with (i.e. respond to) things you disagree with.
It's why I see Marjory Taylor Green stuff all the time.
The algo seems to have changed massively in the last couple of days, though.
Until then my "for you" feed was pretty useful. All of a sudden, it's a mix of 90% shit and right wing trolls with production related stuff. I'd not changed anything.
It's as though Musk is using it as a campaign tool.
I suspect that what Elon thinks is persuasive is likely to have to opposite effect! Being shown Marjorie Taylor Green "Democrats control the hurricanes" doesn't make me more likely to vote Republican, it makes me more likely to head down to the polling booth because people that crazy shouldn't be in power.
Musk was downright embarrassing at that latest Trump rally. I hope for his sake he's compartmentalising rather than expressing his true urges.
He seems very impulsive in his public utterances, I'd assume he is being very sincere in these matters.
Including flights and accommodation I might just have crept over my £400 Geneva budget
If you are of a certain mindset, you might find yourself getting a little obsessed with metrics. "I must beat my step count!!!" is a beginners=level one.
Enjoy Geneva.
These things are amazeybollox
It’s like having a little genie tugging at your arm. “Don’t miss your flight!”
Did you miss many flights without it?
I find people who actually enjoy being buzzed by constant notifications very weird - my phone is permanently on silent - and even weirder when people enjoy constant notifications on the wrist.
Sort of like how it suddenly became acceptable to use your phone at the dinner table in the late 2000s. The idea that you're less present and in the moment and more attached to the tech that's telling you what to do or how to behave.
If I live to be 180, I will still never own a "smart" watch. My watch tells the time. Nothing more, nothing less.
And if that works for you, cool.
Alerts are configurable. Just about everything on such watches (Garmin, Apple or whatever...) is configurable. Mrs J has her watch much more tightly tied down (not linked to any other accounts) than I have.
Oh, I get it. Leon absolutely nails it when he says smart watches are for centrist dads. They are for MAMIL types who obsess over their step count, or how much REM sleep they got last night. People who will bore you about their gore-tex clobber they bought for their latest hike across the peaks. They have a catchment, and more power to the people who enjoy them. Nothing wrong with being a MAMIL who's into gore-tex. Many of my friends are. But I prefer a life without being buzzed, or tracked.
I was thinking about the Tory guy who was wearing a rolex in the winter fuel allowance video the other day. Datejusts were de rigeur for men in their 30s/40s in the 80s, which is why they are such an old man watch now. There are photos of datejusts with their early 80s price tags still attached - about £600. But a watch like that will travel through time with you, and be something you can pass along to your children - while during the same number of years, between eight and twenty iterations of the Apple SmartWatch will be thrown on a landfill somewhere. They are, to me, distinctly mid.
I still have my grandfather's watch, and while it's worthless, it tells the time well enough. It will be ticking along long after I am dead. There is something romantic about time and timelessness, which watches provide, while smart watches - dead or obsolete in a few years - do not. I'm in love with the romance of watches, which makes me just as odd as a MAMIL obsessed with his step count. But I find no romance in smart watches, which are disposable bits of kit, as opposed to marvels of mechanical engineering or heirlooms to be passed from father to son.
As I say, nothing wrong with smart watches - they're just not for me.
That's quite an entertaining rant, except for the fact you can use these watches as just watches to tell the time, with no tracking, stepcounts etc. from memory, on Garmin at least, you need to enable much of this stuff. (Apple may be different).
And before you say that you're paying a lot for 'just a watch'; just look at Rolex et al.
You seem personally insulted, despite the fact I go out of my way to point out it's horses for courses all the way through.
I'm a watch collector (a nerd?! on PB? never!) and would never own a smartwatch. As I say, I'm in love with the romance of the history, the mechanical engineering, and so on. A less kind analysis would say that watches are to men what handbags are to women. Though most of my watches are in the £250-1500 bracket, save for a couple of grail pieces.
I gain no pleasure from having my body functions tracked via my wrist or having notifications appear on it while I'm at dinner. I do like the idea that some of the watches I have I will have worn for sixty or more years before I die, and have watches that my forefathers owned. But as I say, it's horses for courses. If your smartwatch gives you pleasure, wear it.
I do not own a Rolex.
I have a fitbit tracker thing in my right wrist and a fancier watch for my left wrist and a pocket watch from my wife for our marriage. I even have a pocket sundial (not so useful in Ireland). I'd love to collect a few more fancy mechanical watches. I might upgrade to a fancier hiking smartwatch at some point.
I don't see any conflict between the two types of devices.
Absolutely - good compromise, that! If I ever felt the need to track my heart rate etc that's what I would do, too.
I totally see why people who value the functionality of a smartwatch rave about them. But I wouldn't wear one to a black tie do (the last black tie do I went to, I wore a £150 Orient Bambino).
To those who don't see the sentimentality in mechanical watches or the history in them, I ask you - would Christopher Walken have stuffed a Garmin up his ass and kept it there for two years to make sure it was passed down to Bruce Willis?
That's the power of watches. They travel with us, through time.
That's the power of jewelry, surely?
Because that's what a nice Omega is. I wore one because it looked good, and it made me look good.
As I've gotten older and more health conscious, and less concerned about what others think about me - or, to put it another way, as I'm no longer looking to attract a mate - then a Garmin suited me better.
I have said for a long time that Cleverly is the Tories' best option. It seems very, very obvious to me. So what is the case against him? There must be one.
What exactly does he represent?
A desire to sacrifice ideological purity and win the next general election.
The rise and collapse of Jenrick is weird. What or who is driving it?
He seemed like a pretty generic candidate previously but was suddenly getting a lot of attention. I guess he was relatively prominent but removed enough from recent ministerial cock ups?
Including flights and accommodation I might just have crept over my £400 Geneva budget
If you are of a certain mindset, you might find yourself getting a little obsessed with metrics. "I must beat my step count!!!" is a beginners=level one.
Enjoy Geneva.
These things are amazeybollox
It’s like having a little genie tugging at your arm. “Don’t miss your flight!”
Did you miss many flights without it?
I find people who actually enjoy being buzzed by constant notifications very weird - my phone is permanently on silent - and even weirder when people enjoy constant notifications on the wrist.
Sort of like how it suddenly became acceptable to use your phone at the dinner table in the late 2000s. The idea that you're less present and in the moment and more attached to the tech that's telling you what to do or how to behave.
If I live to be 180, I will still never own a "smart" watch. My watch tells the time. Nothing more, nothing less.
And if that works for you, cool.
Alerts are configurable. Just about everything on such watches (Garmin, Apple or whatever...) is configurable. Mrs J has her watch much more tightly tied down (not linked to any other accounts) than I have.
Oh, I get it. Leon absolutely nails it when he says smart watches are for centrist dads. They are for MAMIL types who obsess over their step count, or how much REM sleep they got last night. People who will bore you about their gore-tex clobber they bought for their latest hike across the peaks. They have a catchment, and more power to the people who enjoy them. Nothing wrong with being a MAMIL who's into gore-tex. Many of my friends are. But I prefer a life without being buzzed, or tracked.
I was thinking about the Tory guy who was wearing a rolex in the winter fuel allowance video the other day. Datejusts were de rigeur for men in their 30s/40s in the 80s, which is why they are such an old man watch now. There are photos of datejusts with their early 80s price tags still attached - about £600. But a watch like that will travel through time with you, and be something you can pass along to your children - while during the same number of years, between eight and twenty iterations of the Apple SmartWatch will be thrown on a landfill somewhere. They are, to me, distinctly mid.
I still have my grandfather's watch, and while it's worthless, it tells the time well enough. It will be ticking along long after I am dead. There is something romantic about time and timelessness, which watches provide, while smart watches - dead or obsolete in a few years - do not. I'm in love with the romance of watches, which makes me just as odd as a MAMIL obsessed with his step count. But I find no romance in smart watches, which are disposable bits of kit, as opposed to marvels of mechanical engineering or heirlooms to be passed from father to son.
As I say, nothing wrong with smart watches - they're just not for me.
That's quite an entertaining rant, except for the fact you can use these watches as just watches to tell the time, with no tracking, stepcounts etc. from memory, on Garmin at least, you need to enable much of this stuff. (Apple may be different).
And before you say that you're paying a lot for 'just a watch'; just look at Rolex et al.
You seem personally insulted, despite the fact I go out of my way to point out it's horses for courses all the way through.
I'm a watch collector (a nerd?! on PB? never!) and would never own a smartwatch. As I say, I'm in love with the romance of the history, the mechanical engineering, and so on. A less kind analysis would say that watches are to men what handbags are to women. Though most of my watches are in the £250-1500 bracket, save for a couple of grail pieces.
I gain no pleasure from having my body functions tracked via my wrist or having notifications appear on it while I'm at dinner. I do like the idea that some of the watches I have I will have worn for sixty or more years before I die, and have watches that my forefathers owned. But as I say, it's horses for courses. If your smartwatch gives you pleasure, wear it.
I do not own a Rolex.
"Personally insulted" ???
LOL. I'm saying exactly the opposite. I don't care what other people use; if a wrist-worn sundial works for you, or a tin-can phone connected to the speaking clock made by your five year-old child.
*for me*, my Garmin works well.
BTW, some people also collect 'old' electronics, in the same way you collect mechanical watches. Some people even collect digital watches, as you probably know. And yes, there's a romance to the history, the mechanical, electronic and software engineering, etc, etc.
As for 'Gen Z': they might change their mind when the middle-aged spread comes along and they realise they need to lose a few kilos.
Well, you seemed to feel my last comment was a "rant" when it's just another middle aged watch nerd talking about their hobby.
The same way a train is a train for most people while some people will wax lyrical about the brilliance of the Deltic.
For me what it comes down to is a smartwatch has a very finite lifespan, it's disposable tech, which makes it hard to get excited about or romanticise (if watches excite you at all). Also as others have pointed out, it's a category error to describe a smartwatch as a watch. It's a bit of tech that you wear in the same space a watch traditionally sits. If you value the notifications and the tracking, great - I don't, so I don't wear them.
Not looking to start an argument at all. Just explaining why us watch nerds don't find smart watches appealing. Nothing wrong with them if you do.
Including flights and accommodation I might just have crept over my £400 Geneva budget
If you are of a certain mindset, you might find yourself getting a little obsessed with metrics. "I must beat my step count!!!" is a beginners=level one.
Enjoy Geneva.
These things are amazeybollox
It’s like having a little genie tugging at your arm. “Don’t miss your flight!”
Did you miss many flights without it?
I find people who actually enjoy being buzzed by constant notifications very weird - my phone is permanently on silent - and even weirder when people enjoy constant notifications on the wrist.
Sort of like how it suddenly became acceptable to use your phone at the dinner table in the late 2000s. The idea that you're less present and in the moment and more attached to the tech that's telling you what to do or how to behave.
If I live to be 180, I will still never own a "smart" watch. My watch tells the time. Nothing more, nothing less.
And if that works for you, cool.
Alerts are configurable. Just about everything on such watches (Garmin, Apple or whatever...) is configurable. Mrs J has her watch much more tightly tied down (not linked to any other accounts) than I have.
Oh, I get it. Leon absolutely nails it when he says smart watches are for centrist dads. They are for MAMIL types who obsess over their step count, or how much REM sleep they got last night. People who will bore you about their gore-tex clobber they bought for their latest hike across the peaks. They have a catchment, and more power to the people who enjoy them. Nothing wrong with being a MAMIL who's into gore-tex. Many of my friends are. But I prefer a life without being buzzed, or tracked.
I was thinking about the Tory guy who was wearing a rolex in the winter fuel allowance video the other day. Datejusts were de rigeur for men in their 30s/40s in the 80s, which is why they are such an old man watch now. There are photos of datejusts with their early 80s price tags still attached - about £600. But a watch like that will travel through time with you, and be something you can pass along to your children - while during the same number of years, between eight and twenty iterations of the Apple SmartWatch will be thrown on a landfill somewhere. They are, to me, distinctly mid.
I still have my grandfather's watch, and while it's worthless, it tells the time well enough. It will be ticking along long after I am dead. There is something romantic about time and timelessness, which watches provide, while smart watches - dead or obsolete in a few years - do not. I'm in love with the romance of watches, which makes me just as odd as a MAMIL obsessed with his step count. But I find no romance in smart watches, which are disposable bits of kit, as opposed to marvels of mechanical engineering or heirlooms to be passed from father to son.
As I say, nothing wrong with smart watches - they're just not for me.
That's quite an entertaining rant, except for the fact you can use these watches as just watches to tell the time, with no tracking, stepcounts etc. from memory, on Garmin at least, you need to enable much of this stuff. (Apple may be different).
And before you say that you're paying a lot for 'just a watch'; just look at Rolex et al.
You seem personally insulted, despite the fact I go out of my way to point out it's horses for courses all the way through.
I'm a watch collector (a nerd?! on PB? never!) and would never own a smartwatch. As I say, I'm in love with the romance of the history, the mechanical engineering, and so on. A less kind analysis would say that watches are to men what handbags are to women. Though most of my watches are in the £250-1500 bracket, save for a couple of grail pieces.
I gain no pleasure from having my body functions tracked via my wrist or having notifications appear on it while I'm at dinner. I do like the idea that some of the watches I have I will have worn for sixty or more years before I die, and have watches that my forefathers owned. But as I say, it's horses for courses. If your smartwatch gives you pleasure, wear it.
I do not own a Rolex.
I have a fitbit tracker thing in my right wrist and a fancier watch for my left wrist and a pocket watch from my wife for our marriage. I even have a pocket sundial (not so useful in Ireland). I'd love to collect a few more fancy mechanical watches. I might upgrade to a fancier hiking smartwatch at some point.
I don't see any conflict between the two types of devices.
Absolutely - good compromise, that! If I ever felt the need to track my heart rate etc that's what I would do, too.
I totally see why people who value the functionality of a smartwatch rave about them. But I wouldn't wear one to a black tie do (the last black tie do I went to, I wore a £150 Orient Bambino).
To those who don't see the sentimentality in mechanical watches or the history in them, I ask you - would Christopher Walken have stuffed a Garmin up his ass and kept it there for two years to make sure it was passed down to Bruce Willis?
That's the power of watches. They travel with us, through time.
That's the power of jewelry, surely?
Because that's what a nice Omega is. I wore one because it looked good, and it made me look good.
As I've gotten older and more health conscious, and less concerned about what others think about me - or, to put it another way, as I'm no longer looking to attract a mate - then a Garmin suited me better.
But horses for courses.
I simply love watches and clocks - I'd not actually wear one for all the cash in China/Smithson Bank Accounts (whichever is the larger)
Including flights and accommodation I might just have crept over my £400 Geneva budget
If you are of a certain mindset, you might find yourself getting a little obsessed with metrics. "I must beat my step count!!!" is a beginners=level one.
Enjoy Geneva.
These things are amazeybollox
It’s like having a little genie tugging at your arm. “Don’t miss your flight!”
Did you miss many flights without it?
I find people who actually enjoy being buzzed by constant notifications very weird - my phone is permanently on silent - and even weirder when people enjoy constant notifications on the wrist.
Sort of like how it suddenly became acceptable to use your phone at the dinner table in the late 2000s. The idea that you're less present and in the moment and more attached to the tech that's telling you what to do or how to behave.
If I live to be 180, I will still never own a "smart" watch. My watch tells the time. Nothing more, nothing less.
And if that works for you, cool.
Alerts are configurable. Just about everything on such watches (Garmin, Apple or whatever...) is configurable. Mrs J has her watch much more tightly tied down (not linked to any other accounts) than I have.
Oh, I get it. Leon absolutely nails it when he says smart watches are for centrist dads. They are for MAMIL types who obsess over their step count, or how much REM sleep they got last night. People who will bore you about their gore-tex clobber they bought for their latest hike across the peaks. They have a catchment, and more power to the people who enjoy them. Nothing wrong with being a MAMIL who's into gore-tex. Many of my friends are. But I prefer a life without being buzzed, or tracked.
I was thinking about the Tory guy who was wearing a rolex in the winter fuel allowance video the other day. Datejusts were de rigeur for men in their 30s/40s in the 80s, which is why they are such an old man watch now. There are photos of datejusts with their early 80s price tags still attached - about £600. But a watch like that will travel through time with you, and be something you can pass along to your children - while during the same number of years, between eight and twenty iterations of the Apple SmartWatch will be thrown on a landfill somewhere. They are, to me, distinctly mid.
I still have my grandfather's watch, and while it's worthless, it tells the time well enough. It will be ticking along long after I am dead. There is something romantic about time and timelessness, which watches provide, while smart watches - dead or obsolete in a few years - do not. I'm in love with the romance of watches, which makes me just as odd as a MAMIL obsessed with his step count. But I find no romance in smart watches, which are disposable bits of kit, as opposed to marvels of mechanical engineering or heirlooms to be passed from father to son.
As I say, nothing wrong with smart watches - they're just not for me.
That's quite an entertaining rant, except for the fact you can use these watches as just watches to tell the time, with no tracking, stepcounts etc. from memory, on Garmin at least, you need to enable much of this stuff. (Apple may be different).
And before you say that you're paying a lot for 'just a watch'; just look at Rolex et al.
You seem personally insulted, despite the fact I go out of my way to point out it's horses for courses all the way through.
I'm a watch collector (a nerd?! on PB? never!) and would never own a smartwatch. As I say, I'm in love with the romance of the history, the mechanical engineering, and so on. A less kind analysis would say that watches are to men what handbags are to women. Though most of my watches are in the £250-1500 bracket, save for a couple of grail pieces.
I gain no pleasure from having my body functions tracked via my wrist or having notifications appear on it while I'm at dinner. I do like the idea that some of the watches I have I will have worn for sixty or more years before I die, and have watches that my forefathers owned. But as I say, it's horses for courses. If your smartwatch gives you pleasure, wear it.
I do not own a Rolex.
"Personally insulted" ???
LOL. I'm saying exactly the opposite. I don't care what other people use; if a wrist-worn sundial works for you, or a tin-can phone connected to the speaking clock made by your five year-old child.
*for me*, my Garmin works well.
BTW, some people also collect 'old' electronics, in the same way you collect mechanical watches. Some people even collect digital watches, as you probably know. And yes, there's a romance to the history, the mechanical, electronic and software engineering, etc, etc.
As for 'Gen Z': they might change their mind when the middle-aged spread comes along and they realise they need to lose a few kilos.
Well, you seemed to feel my last comment was a "rant" when it's just another middle aged watch nerd talking about their hobby.
The same way a train is a train for most people while some people will wax lyrical about the brilliance of the Deltic.
For me what it comes down to is a smartwatch has a very finite lifespan, it's disposable tech, which makes it hard to get excited about or romanticise (if watches excite you at all). Also as others have pointed out, it's a category error to describe a smartwatch as a watch. It's a bit of tech that you wear in the same space a watch traditionally sits. If you value the notifications and the tracking, great - I don't, so I don't wear them.
Not looking to start an argument at all. Just explaining why us watch nerds don't find smart watches appealing. Nothing wrong with them if you do.
Oi. Only perverts wax lyrical about the so-called 'brilliance' of the failure that was the Deltic locomotive.
I hope we use our Brexit freedoms to allow the Cybertruck on UK roads.
The Tesla Cybertruck is too big and too dangerous for European roads, transport campaigners have warned.
There is confusion about whether the Cybertruck could be driven in Europe because of strict road safety rules. These ban sharp edges and require speed limiters on vehicles that weigh more than 3.5 tonnes.
Tesla says the vehicle weighs four tonnes, compared with about two tonnes for normal family cars. In a letter to the European Commission campaign groups called for Cybertrucks to be removed from public roads.
It's a dangerous abortion of a design and it 1000 of them need to be rammed up Elon Muck's anal passage.
It would be a quick death, at least, with those sharp edges. Not like a usual SUV where you get crushed underneath.
Then he'll get a Golden Darwin Award as well.
4 tonnes is an extraordinary weight for a passenger vehicle. Does it mean anyone under about the age of 45 can't drive it because of their license ?
It means that it is subject to a 60mph limit on motorways is the only one known to me.
But the entire category of "light trucks" are built to exploit loopholes in USA's already way-behind safety, so are even more dangerous.
Vehicles in that category have zero place on the roads of any civilised country.
The presenting problem is that full size Dodge RAMs are planned to be coming this way in quantity exploiting IVA approval as a loophole, so it needs to be severely tightened up PDQ.
Including flights and accommodation I might just have crept over my £400 Geneva budget
If you are of a certain mindset, you might find yourself getting a little obsessed with metrics. "I must beat my step count!!!" is a beginners=level one.
Enjoy Geneva.
These things are amazeybollox
It’s like having a little genie tugging at your arm. “Don’t miss your flight!”
Did you miss many flights without it?
I find people who actually enjoy being buzzed by constant notifications very weird - my phone is permanently on silent - and even weirder when people enjoy constant notifications on the wrist.
Sort of like how it suddenly became acceptable to use your phone at the dinner table in the late 2000s. The idea that you're less present and in the moment and more attached to the tech that's telling you what to do or how to behave.
If I live to be 180, I will still never own a "smart" watch. My watch tells the time. Nothing more, nothing less.
And if that works for you, cool.
Alerts are configurable. Just about everything on such watches (Garmin, Apple or whatever...) is configurable. Mrs J has her watch much more tightly tied down (not linked to any other accounts) than I have.
Oh, I get it. Leon absolutely nails it when he says smart watches are for centrist dads. They are for MAMIL types who obsess over their step count, or how much REM sleep they got last night. People who will bore you about their gore-tex clobber they bought for their latest hike across the peaks. They have a catchment, and more power to the people who enjoy them. Nothing wrong with being a MAMIL who's into gore-tex. Many of my friends are. But I prefer a life without being buzzed, or tracked.
I was thinking about the Tory guy who was wearing a rolex in the winter fuel allowance video the other day. Datejusts were de rigeur for men in their 30s/40s in the 80s, which is why they are such an old man watch now. There are photos of datejusts with their early 80s price tags still attached - about £600. But a watch like that will travel through time with you, and be something you can pass along to your children - while during the same number of years, between eight and twenty iterations of the Apple SmartWatch will be thrown on a landfill somewhere. They are, to me, distinctly mid.
I still have my grandfather's watch, and while it's worthless, it tells the time well enough. It will be ticking along long after I am dead. There is something romantic about time and timelessness, which watches provide, while smart watches - dead or obsolete in a few years - do not. I'm in love with the romance of watches, which makes me just as odd as a MAMIL obsessed with his step count. But I find no romance in smart watches, which are disposable bits of kit, as opposed to marvels of mechanical engineering or heirlooms to be passed from father to son.
As I say, nothing wrong with smart watches - they're just not for me.
That's quite an entertaining rant, except for the fact you can use these watches as just watches to tell the time, with no tracking, stepcounts etc. from memory, on Garmin at least, you need to enable much of this stuff. (Apple may be different).
And before you say that you're paying a lot for 'just a watch'; just look at Rolex et al.
You seem personally insulted, despite the fact I go out of my way to point out it's horses for courses all the way through.
I'm a watch collector (a nerd?! on PB? never!) and would never own a smartwatch. As I say, I'm in love with the romance of the history, the mechanical engineering, and so on. A less kind analysis would say that watches are to men what handbags are to women. Though most of my watches are in the £250-1500 bracket, save for a couple of grail pieces.
I gain no pleasure from having my body functions tracked via my wrist or having notifications appear on it while I'm at dinner. I do like the idea that some of the watches I have I will have worn for sixty or more years before I die, and have watches that my forefathers owned. But as I say, it's horses for courses. If your smartwatch gives you pleasure, wear it.
I do not own a Rolex.
I have a fitbit tracker thing in my right wrist and a fancier watch for my left wrist and a pocket watch from my wife for our marriage. I even have a pocket sundial (not so useful in Ireland). I'd love to collect a few more fancy mechanical watches. I might upgrade to a fancier hiking smartwatch at some point.
I don't see any conflict between the two types of devices.
How does a pocket sundial work, please? Does it have a built-in compass?
Including flights and accommodation I might just have crept over my £400 Geneva budget
If you are of a certain mindset, you might find yourself getting a little obsessed with metrics. "I must beat my step count!!!" is a beginners=level one.
Enjoy Geneva.
These things are amazeybollox
It’s like having a little genie tugging at your arm. “Don’t miss your flight!”
Did you miss many flights without it?
I find people who actually enjoy being buzzed by constant notifications very weird - my phone is permanently on silent - and even weirder when people enjoy constant notifications on the wrist.
Sort of like how it suddenly became acceptable to use your phone at the dinner table in the late 2000s. The idea that you're less present and in the moment and more attached to the tech that's telling you what to do or how to behave.
If I live to be 180, I will still never own a "smart" watch. My watch tells the time. Nothing more, nothing less.
And if that works for you, cool.
Alerts are configurable. Just about everything on such watches (Garmin, Apple or whatever...) is configurable. Mrs J has her watch much more tightly tied down (not linked to any other accounts) than I have.
Oh, I get it. Leon absolutely nails it when he says smart watches are for centrist dads. They are for MAMIL types who obsess over their step count, or how much REM sleep they got last night. People who will bore you about their gore-tex clobber they bought for their latest hike across the peaks. They have a catchment, and more power to the people who enjoy them. Nothing wrong with being a MAMIL who's into gore-tex. Many of my friends are. But I prefer a life without being buzzed, or tracked.
I was thinking about the Tory guy who was wearing a rolex in the winter fuel allowance video the other day. Datejusts were de rigeur for men in their 30s/40s in the 80s, which is why they are such an old man watch now. There are photos of datejusts with their early 80s price tags still attached - about £600. But a watch like that will travel through time with you, and be something you can pass along to your children - while during the same number of years, between eight and twenty iterations of the Apple SmartWatch will be thrown on a landfill somewhere. They are, to me, distinctly mid.
I still have my grandfather's watch, and while it's worthless, it tells the time well enough. It will be ticking along long after I am dead. There is something romantic about time and timelessness, which watches provide, while smart watches - dead or obsolete in a few years - do not. I'm in love with the romance of watches, which makes me just as odd as a MAMIL obsessed with his step count. But I find no romance in smart watches, which are disposable bits of kit, as opposed to marvels of mechanical engineering or heirlooms to be passed from father to son.
As I say, nothing wrong with smart watches - they're just not for me.
The ridicule that MAMILs (and now smartwatch wearers) receive is, I suspect, a distinctly British phenomenon and comes from a inferiority complex when it comes to exercise and looking after your body.
If the NHS is to survive, we need many more people like Leon to get smartwatches and don the padded shorts, to buy the fancy storm jacket and head into the Peak District. Nothing better than seeing a bunch of overweight boomers desperately trying to make it over the Bealach na Ba.
The ridicule is not the exercise but the obsession with kit. I get just as much exercise on my £700 touring bike and my shorts and t-shirts as my mate on his £10000 bike and £1000+ of kit and accessories gets. And we don't have to stop when my tech goes wrong because I don't have any.
BUT do you have issuses with chaffing? Perhaps high-tech solution for THAT might do you some good!
As for your last point above, there's a Dutch woman with YouTube channel who motorcycles to the back of beyond . . . and then beyond that . . . who is having a bike designed for her, that eliminates most of the high-tech electronics in favor of low-tech reliability AND repair . . . especially in boondock/outback situations.
Including flights and accommodation I might just have crept over my £400 Geneva budget
If you are of a certain mindset, you might find yourself getting a little obsessed with metrics. "I must beat my step count!!!" is a beginners=level one.
Enjoy Geneva.
These things are amazeybollox
It’s like having a little genie tugging at your arm. “Don’t miss your flight!”
Did you miss many flights without it?
I find people who actually enjoy being buzzed by constant notifications very weird - my phone is permanently on silent - and even weirder when people enjoy constant notifications on the wrist.
Sort of like how it suddenly became acceptable to use your phone at the dinner table in the late 2000s. The idea that you're less present and in the moment and more attached to the tech that's telling you what to do or how to behave.
If I live to be 180, I will still never own a "smart" watch. My watch tells the time. Nothing more, nothing less.
And if that works for you, cool.
Alerts are configurable. Just about everything on such watches (Garmin, Apple or whatever...) is configurable. Mrs J has her watch much more tightly tied down (not linked to any other accounts) than I have.
Oh, I get it. Leon absolutely nails it when he says smart watches are for centrist dads. They are for MAMIL types who obsess over their step count, or how much REM sleep they got last night. People who will bore you about their gore-tex clobber they bought for their latest hike across the peaks. They have a catchment, and more power to the people who enjoy them. Nothing wrong with being a MAMIL who's into gore-tex. Many of my friends are. But I prefer a life without being buzzed, or tracked.
I was thinking about the Tory guy who was wearing a rolex in the winter fuel allowance video the other day. Datejusts were de rigeur for men in their 30s/40s in the 80s, which is why they are such an old man watch now. There are photos of datejusts with their early 80s price tags still attached - about £600. But a watch like that will travel through time with you, and be something you can pass along to your children - while during the same number of years, between eight and twenty iterations of the Apple SmartWatch will be thrown on a landfill somewhere. They are, to me, distinctly mid.
I still have my grandfather's watch, and while it's worthless, it tells the time well enough. It will be ticking along long after I am dead. There is something romantic about time and timelessness, which watches provide, while smart watches - dead or obsolete in a few years - do not. I'm in love with the romance of watches, which makes me just as odd as a MAMIL obsessed with his step count. But I find no romance in smart watches, which are disposable bits of kit, as opposed to marvels of mechanical engineering or heirlooms to be passed from father to son.
As I say, nothing wrong with smart watches - they're just not for me.
That's quite an entertaining rant, except for the fact you can use these watches as just watches to tell the time, with no tracking, stepcounts etc. from memory, on Garmin at least, you need to enable much of this stuff. (Apple may be different).
And before you say that you're paying a lot for 'just a watch'; just look at Rolex et al.
You seem personally insulted, despite the fact I go out of my way to point out it's horses for courses all the way through.
I'm a watch collector (a nerd?! on PB? never!) and would never own a smartwatch. As I say, I'm in love with the romance of the history, the mechanical engineering, and so on. A less kind analysis would say that watches are to men what handbags are to women. Though most of my watches are in the £250-1500 bracket, save for a couple of grail pieces.
I gain no pleasure from having my body functions tracked via my wrist or having notifications appear on it while I'm at dinner. I do like the idea that some of the watches I have I will have worn for sixty or more years before I die, and have watches that my forefathers owned. But as I say, it's horses for courses. If your smartwatch gives you pleasure, wear it.
I do not own a Rolex.
I have a fitbit tracker thing in my right wrist and a fancier watch for my left wrist and a pocket watch from my wife for our marriage. I even have a pocket sundial (not so useful in Ireland). I'd love to collect a few more fancy mechanical watches. I might upgrade to a fancier hiking smartwatch at some point.
I don't see any conflict between the two types of devices.
Absolutely - good compromise, that! If I ever felt the need to track my heart rate etc that's what I would do, too.
I totally see why people who value the functionality of a smartwatch rave about them. But I wouldn't wear one to a black tie do (the last black tie do I went to, I wore a £150 Orient Bambino).
To those who don't see the sentimentality in mechanical watches or the history in them, I ask you - would Christopher Walken have stuffed a Garmin up his ass and kept it there for two years to make sure it was passed down to Bruce Willis?
That's the power of watches. They travel with us, through time.
That's the power of jewelry, surely?
Because that's what a nice Omega is. I wore one because it looked good, and it made me look good.
As I've gotten older and more health conscious, and less concerned about what others think about me - or, to put it another way, as I'm no longer looking to attract a mate - then a Garmin suited me better.
But horses for courses.
As my previous comment, "watches are handbags for men" ...though "watches are jewellery for men" would be just as appropriate. They're things us guys can get sentimentally attached to.
My speedy, I'm attached to. (Though the new FOIS has turned my head and made me wonder if it's time to swap). I can't ever imagine getting attached to a Garmin or iWatch with a three year lifespan in the same way.
It's definitely a slow news day on PB when we're into watches for two days running...
I hope we use our Brexit freedoms to allow the Cybertruck on UK roads.
The Tesla Cybertruck is too big and too dangerous for European roads, transport campaigners have warned.
There is confusion about whether the Cybertruck could be driven in Europe because of strict road safety rules. These ban sharp edges and require speed limiters on vehicles that weigh more than 3.5 tonnes.
Tesla says the vehicle weighs four tonnes, compared with about two tonnes for normal family cars. In a letter to the European Commission campaign groups called for Cybertrucks to be removed from public roads.
It's a dangerous abortion of a design and it 1000 of them need to be rammed up Elon Muck's anal passage.
It would be a quick death, at least, with those sharp edges. Not like a usual SUV where you get crushed underneath.
Then he'll get a Golden Darwin Award as well.
4 tonnes is an extraordinary weight for a passenger vehicle. Does it mean anyone under about the age of 45 can't drive it because of their license ?
That’s not the gross weight, that’s the empty weight!
Yes, you would need to do another driving test in the UK.
Only if you're under about 45 IIRC - we removed the right to drive luton tail-lifts and so on to harmonise with EU license laws, but it's baked in up to 7 tons (?) if you're old enough.
Yes the rules changed in 1996, reducing the vehicle you can drive with a standard car licence from 7.5t to 3.5t. If you passed your test in 1995, as myself and @TheScreamingEagles did, you get grandfather rights. If you’re @Pulpstar and a few months younger, you have to do another test in a 7.5t truck to be allowed to drive one.
I drove a laundry van after leaving Uni and before starting work in 1976, the hot summer. I don't know how heavy it was, but it was big. It had sliding doors so I drove it with both doors open in the heat. The seat (there was only one) was a metal frame with a canvas back and bottom. One day I was asked to pick up a motor (for the laundry). It was forklifted into the back and tied down. It broke free on the journey and slide around as I braked, accelerated and went around corners. A scary drive. When I braked once a laundry box slide through to the front (there was a walk through on the passenger side) and out of the passenger door (not that it could take a passenger). I was a danger to the road.
Including flights and accommodation I might just have crept over my £400 Geneva budget
If you are of a certain mindset, you might find yourself getting a little obsessed with metrics. "I must beat my step count!!!" is a beginners=level one.
Enjoy Geneva.
These things are amazeybollox
It’s like having a little genie tugging at your arm. “Don’t miss your flight!”
Did you miss many flights without it?
I find people who actually enjoy being buzzed by constant notifications very weird - my phone is permanently on silent - and even weirder when people enjoy constant notifications on the wrist.
Sort of like how it suddenly became acceptable to use your phone at the dinner table in the late 2000s. The idea that you're less present and in the moment and more attached to the tech that's telling you what to do or how to behave.
If I live to be 180, I will still never own a "smart" watch. My watch tells the time. Nothing more, nothing less.
And if that works for you, cool.
Alerts are configurable. Just about everything on such watches (Garmin, Apple or whatever...) is configurable. Mrs J has her watch much more tightly tied down (not linked to any other accounts) than I have.
Oh, I get it. Leon absolutely nails it when he says smart watches are for centrist dads. They are for MAMIL types who obsess over their step count, or how much REM sleep they got last night. People who will bore you about their gore-tex clobber they bought for their latest hike across the peaks. They have a catchment, and more power to the people who enjoy them. Nothing wrong with being a MAMIL who's into gore-tex. Many of my friends are. But I prefer a life without being buzzed, or tracked.
I was thinking about the Tory guy who was wearing a rolex in the winter fuel allowance video the other day. Datejusts were de rigeur for men in their 30s/40s in the 80s, which is why they are such an old man watch now. There are photos of datejusts with their early 80s price tags still attached - about £600. But a watch like that will travel through time with you, and be something you can pass along to your children - while during the same number of years, between eight and twenty iterations of the Apple SmartWatch will be thrown on a landfill somewhere. They are, to me, distinctly mid.
I still have my grandfather's watch, and while it's worthless, it tells the time well enough. It will be ticking along long after I am dead. There is something romantic about time and timelessness, which watches provide, while smart watches - dead or obsolete in a few years - do not. I'm in love with the romance of watches, which makes me just as odd as a MAMIL obsessed with his step count. But I find no romance in smart watches, which are disposable bits of kit, as opposed to marvels of mechanical engineering or heirlooms to be passed from father to son.
As I say, nothing wrong with smart watches - they're just not for me.
That's quite an entertaining rant, except for the fact you can use these watches as just watches to tell the time, with no tracking, stepcounts etc. from memory, on Garmin at least, you need to enable much of this stuff. (Apple may be different).
And before you say that you're paying a lot for 'just a watch'; just look at Rolex et al.
You seem personally insulted, despite the fact I go out of my way to point out it's horses for courses all the way through.
I'm a watch collector (a nerd?! on PB? never!) and would never own a smartwatch. As I say, I'm in love with the romance of the history, the mechanical engineering, and so on. A less kind analysis would say that watches are to men what handbags are to women. Though most of my watches are in the £250-1500 bracket, save for a couple of grail pieces.
I gain no pleasure from having my body functions tracked via my wrist or having notifications appear on it while I'm at dinner. I do like the idea that some of the watches I have I will have worn for sixty or more years before I die, and have watches that my forefathers owned. But as I say, it's horses for courses. If your smartwatch gives you pleasure, wear it.
I do not own a Rolex.
I have a fitbit tracker thing in my right wrist and a fancier watch for my left wrist and a pocket watch from my wife for our marriage. I even have a pocket sundial (not so useful in Ireland). I'd love to collect a few more fancy mechanical watches. I might upgrade to a fancier hiking smartwatch at some point.
I don't see any conflict between the two types of devices.
Absolutely - good compromise, that! If I ever felt the need to track my heart rate etc that's what I would do, too.
I totally see why people who value the functionality of a smartwatch rave about them. But I wouldn't wear one to a black tie do (the last black tie do I went to, I wore a £150 Orient Bambino).
To those who don't see the sentimentality in mechanical watches or the history in them, I ask you - would Christopher Walken have stuffed a Garmin up his ass and kept it there for two years to make sure it was passed down to Bruce Willis?
That's the power of watches. They travel with us, through time.
That's the power of jewelry, surely?
Because that's what a nice Omega is. I wore one because it looked good, and it made me look good.
As I've gotten older and more health conscious, and less concerned about what others think about me - or, to put it another way, as I'm no longer looking to attract a mate - then a Garmin suited me better.
But horses for courses.
As my previous comment, "watches are handbags for men" ...though "watches are jewellery for men" would be just as appropriate. They're things us guys can get sentimentally attached to.
My speedy, I'm attached to. (Though the new FOIS has turned my head and made me wonder if it's time to swap). I can't ever imagine getting attached to a Garmin or iWatch with a three year lifespan in the same way.
It's definitely a slow news day on PB when we're into watches for two days running...
My Casio works great as a watch. It is all you need. If you buy fashion or luxury watches then you are buying them for other reasons. Which is fine.
Including flights and accommodation I might just have crept over my £400 Geneva budget
If you are of a certain mindset, you might find yourself getting a little obsessed with metrics. "I must beat my step count!!!" is a beginners=level one.
Enjoy Geneva.
These things are amazeybollox
It’s like having a little genie tugging at your arm. “Don’t miss your flight!”
Did you miss many flights without it?
I find people who actually enjoy being buzzed by constant notifications very weird - my phone is permanently on silent - and even weirder when people enjoy constant notifications on the wrist.
Sort of like how it suddenly became acceptable to use your phone at the dinner table in the late 2000s. The idea that you're less present and in the moment and more attached to the tech that's telling you what to do or how to behave.
If I live to be 180, I will still never own a "smart" watch. My watch tells the time. Nothing more, nothing less.
And if that works for you, cool.
Alerts are configurable. Just about everything on such watches (Garmin, Apple or whatever...) is configurable. Mrs J has her watch much more tightly tied down (not linked to any other accounts) than I have.
Oh, I get it. Leon absolutely nails it when he says smart watches are for centrist dads. They are for MAMIL types who obsess over their step count, or how much REM sleep they got last night. People who will bore you about their gore-tex clobber they bought for their latest hike across the peaks. They have a catchment, and more power to the people who enjoy them. Nothing wrong with being a MAMIL who's into gore-tex. Many of my friends are. But I prefer a life without being buzzed, or tracked.
I was thinking about the Tory guy who was wearing a rolex in the winter fuel allowance video the other day. Datejusts were de rigeur for men in their 30s/40s in the 80s, which is why they are such an old man watch now. There are photos of datejusts with their early 80s price tags still attached - about £600. But a watch like that will travel through time with you, and be something you can pass along to your children - while during the same number of years, between eight and twenty iterations of the Apple SmartWatch will be thrown on a landfill somewhere. They are, to me, distinctly mid.
I still have my grandfather's watch, and while it's worthless, it tells the time well enough. It will be ticking along long after I am dead. There is something romantic about time and timelessness, which watches provide, while smart watches - dead or obsolete in a few years - do not. I'm in love with the romance of watches, which makes me just as odd as a MAMIL obsessed with his step count. But I find no romance in smart watches, which are disposable bits of kit, as opposed to marvels of mechanical engineering or heirlooms to be passed from father to son.
As I say, nothing wrong with smart watches - they're just not for me.
That's quite an entertaining rant, except for the fact you can use these watches as just watches to tell the time, with no tracking, stepcounts etc. from memory, on Garmin at least, you need to enable much of this stuff. (Apple may be different).
And before you say that you're paying a lot for 'just a watch'; just look at Rolex et al.
You seem personally insulted, despite the fact I go out of my way to point out it's horses for courses all the way through.
I'm a watch collector (a nerd?! on PB? never!) and would never own a smartwatch. As I say, I'm in love with the romance of the history, the mechanical engineering, and so on. A less kind analysis would say that watches are to men what handbags are to women. Though most of my watches are in the £250-1500 bracket, save for a couple of grail pieces.
I gain no pleasure from having my body functions tracked via my wrist or having notifications appear on it while I'm at dinner. I do like the idea that some of the watches I have I will have worn for sixty or more years before I die, and have watches that my forefathers owned. But as I say, it's horses for courses. If your smartwatch gives you pleasure, wear it.
I do not own a Rolex.
I have a fitbit tracker thing in my right wrist and a fancier watch for my left wrist and a pocket watch from my wife for our marriage. I even have a pocket sundial (not so useful in Ireland). I'd love to collect a few more fancy mechanical watches. I might upgrade to a fancier hiking smartwatch at some point.
I don't see any conflict between the two types of devices.
Absolutely - good compromise, that! If I ever felt the need to track my heart rate etc that's what I would do, too.
I totally see why people who value the functionality of a smartwatch rave about them. But I wouldn't wear one to a black tie do (the last black tie do I went to, I wore a £150 Orient Bambino).
To those who don't see the sentimentality in mechanical watches or the history in them, I ask you - would Christopher Walken have stuffed a Garmin up his ass and kept it there for two years to make sure it was passed down to Bruce Willis?
That's the power of watches. They travel with us, through time.
That's the power of jewelry, surely?
Because that's what a nice Omega is. I wore one because it looked good, and it made me look good.
As I've gotten older and more health conscious, and less concerned about what others think about me - or, to put it another way, as I'm no longer looking to attract a mate - then a Garmin suited me better.
But horses for courses.
I simply love watches and clocks - I'd not actually wear one for all the cash in China/Smithson Bank Accounts (whichever is the larger)
We have a massive old flat clock on our wall, maybe 4 feet diameter. I like it very much.
Including flights and accommodation I might just have crept over my £400 Geneva budget
If you are of a certain mindset, you might find yourself getting a little obsessed with metrics. "I must beat my step count!!!" is a beginners=level one.
Enjoy Geneva.
These things are amazeybollox
It’s like having a little genie tugging at your arm. “Don’t miss your flight!”
Did you miss many flights without it?
I find people who actually enjoy being buzzed by constant notifications very weird - my phone is permanently on silent - and even weirder when people enjoy constant notifications on the wrist.
Sort of like how it suddenly became acceptable to use your phone at the dinner table in the late 2000s. The idea that you're less present and in the moment and more attached to the tech that's telling you what to do or how to behave.
If I live to be 180, I will still never own a "smart" watch. My watch tells the time. Nothing more, nothing less.
And if that works for you, cool.
Alerts are configurable. Just about everything on such watches (Garmin, Apple or whatever...) is configurable. Mrs J has her watch much more tightly tied down (not linked to any other accounts) than I have.
Oh, I get it. Leon absolutely nails it when he says smart watches are for centrist dads. They are for MAMIL types who obsess over their step count, or how much REM sleep they got last night. People who will bore you about their gore-tex clobber they bought for their latest hike across the peaks. They have a catchment, and more power to the people who enjoy them. Nothing wrong with being a MAMIL who's into gore-tex. Many of my friends are. But I prefer a life without being buzzed, or tracked.
I was thinking about the Tory guy who was wearing a rolex in the winter fuel allowance video the other day. Datejusts were de rigeur for men in their 30s/40s in the 80s, which is why they are such an old man watch now. There are photos of datejusts with their early 80s price tags still attached - about £600. But a watch like that will travel through time with you, and be something you can pass along to your children - while during the same number of years, between eight and twenty iterations of the Apple SmartWatch will be thrown on a landfill somewhere. They are, to me, distinctly mid.
I still have my grandfather's watch, and while it's worthless, it tells the time well enough. It will be ticking along long after I am dead. There is something romantic about time and timelessness, which watches provide, while smart watches - dead or obsolete in a few years - do not. I'm in love with the romance of watches, which makes me just as odd as a MAMIL obsessed with his step count. But I find no romance in smart watches, which are disposable bits of kit, as opposed to marvels of mechanical engineering or heirlooms to be passed from father to son.
As I say, nothing wrong with smart watches - they're just not for me.
That's quite an entertaining rant, except for the fact you can use these watches as just watches to tell the time, with no tracking, stepcounts etc. from memory, on Garmin at least, you need to enable much of this stuff. (Apple may be different).
And before you say that you're paying a lot for 'just a watch'; just look at Rolex et al.
You seem personally insulted, despite the fact I go out of my way to point out it's horses for courses all the way through.
I'm a watch collector (a nerd?! on PB? never!) and would never own a smartwatch. As I say, I'm in love with the romance of the history, the mechanical engineering, and so on. A less kind analysis would say that watches are to men what handbags are to women. Though most of my watches are in the £250-1500 bracket, save for a couple of grail pieces.
I gain no pleasure from having my body functions tracked via my wrist or having notifications appear on it while I'm at dinner. I do like the idea that some of the watches I have I will have worn for sixty or more years before I die, and have watches that my forefathers owned. But as I say, it's horses for courses. If your smartwatch gives you pleasure, wear it.
I do not own a Rolex.
I have a fitbit tracker thing in my right wrist and a fancier watch for my left wrist and a pocket watch from my wife for our marriage. I even have a pocket sundial (not so useful in Ireland). I'd love to collect a few more fancy mechanical watches. I might upgrade to a fancier hiking smartwatch at some point.
I don't see any conflict between the two types of devices.
Absolutely - good compromise, that! If I ever felt the need to track my heart rate etc that's what I would do, too.
I totally see why people who value the functionality of a smartwatch rave about them. But I wouldn't wear one to a black tie do (the last black tie do I went to, I wore a £150 Orient Bambino).
To those who don't see the sentimentality in mechanical watches or the history in them, I ask you - would Christopher Walken have stuffed a Garmin up his ass and kept it there for two years to make sure it was passed down to Bruce Willis?
That's the power of watches. They travel with us, through time.
That's the power of jewelry, surely?
Because that's what a nice Omega is. I wore one because it looked good, and it made me look good.
As I've gotten older and more health conscious, and less concerned about what others think about me - or, to put it another way, as I'm no longer looking to attract a mate - then a Garmin suited me better.
But horses for courses.
As my previous comment, "watches are handbags for men" ...though "watches are jewellery for men" would be just as appropriate. They're things us guys can get sentimentally attached to.
My speedy, I'm attached to. (Though the new FOIS has turned my head and made me wonder if it's time to swap). I can't ever imagine getting attached to a Garmin or iWatch with a three year lifespan in the same way.
It's definitely a slow news day on PB when we're into watches for two days running...
My Casio works great
I'm wearing one right now. Still got the original battery in and I've had it since my 20s...
Harris is getting a huge historic lead in white college graduates in the latest polling:
Clinton achieved +5% margin Biden achieved +9% margin Harris has a poll showing +18% margin
Biggest margin ever recorded.
(Source CNN)
I'm seeing many times more pro-Trump/anti-Harris stuff on Twix than I am anti-Trump/pro-Harris. This is despite me being more on the pro-Harris side.
It'll be interesting to see if this election is a case of those who make the most noise, having least effect. Or if the noise matters.
That's because TwiX prioritizes engagement, and you are more likely to engage with (i.e. respond to) things you disagree with.
It's why I see Marjory Taylor Green stuff all the time.
The algo seems to have changed massively in the last couple of days, though.
Until then my "for you" feed was pretty useful. All of a sudden, it's a mix of 90% shit and right wing trolls with production related stuff. I'd not changed anything.
It's as though Musk is using it as a campaign tool.
I suspect that what Elon thinks is persuasive is likely to have to opposite effect! Being shown Marjorie Taylor Green "Democrats control the hurricanes" doesn't make me more likely to vote Republican, it makes me more likely to head down to the polling booth because people that crazy shouldn't be in power.
Musk was downright embarrassing at that latest Trump rally. I hope for his sake he's compartmentalising rather than expressing his true urges.
He seems very impulsive in his public utterances, I'd assume he is being very sincere in these matters.
On topic - Every candidate takes centre stage and immediately loses momentum. I'm not sure thats an encouraging situation for the future of the Con Party. Still if Kemi can win out it will at least make some people happy.
Including flights and accommodation I might just have crept over my £400 Geneva budget
If you are of a certain mindset, you might find yourself getting a little obsessed with metrics. "I must beat my step count!!!" is a beginners=level one.
Enjoy Geneva.
These things are amazeybollox
It’s like having a little genie tugging at your arm. “Don’t miss your flight!”
Did you miss many flights without it?
I find people who actually enjoy being buzzed by constant notifications very weird - my phone is permanently on silent - and even weirder when people enjoy constant notifications on the wrist.
Sort of like how it suddenly became acceptable to use your phone at the dinner table in the late 2000s. The idea that you're less present and in the moment and more attached to the tech that's telling you what to do or how to behave.
If I live to be 180, I will still never own a "smart" watch. My watch tells the time. Nothing more, nothing less.
And if that works for you, cool.
Alerts are configurable. Just about everything on such watches (Garmin, Apple or whatever...) is configurable. Mrs J has her watch much more tightly tied down (not linked to any other accounts) than I have.
Oh, I get it. Leon absolutely nails it when he says smart watches are for centrist dads. They are for MAMIL types who obsess over their step count, or how much REM sleep they got last night. People who will bore you about their gore-tex clobber they bought for their latest hike across the peaks. They have a catchment, and more power to the people who enjoy them. Nothing wrong with being a MAMIL who's into gore-tex. Many of my friends are. But I prefer a life without being buzzed, or tracked.
I was thinking about the Tory guy who was wearing a rolex in the winter fuel allowance video the other day. Datejusts were de rigeur for men in their 30s/40s in the 80s, which is why they are such an old man watch now. There are photos of datejusts with their early 80s price tags still attached - about £600. But a watch like that will travel through time with you, and be something you can pass along to your children - while during the same number of years, between eight and twenty iterations of the Apple SmartWatch will be thrown on a landfill somewhere. They are, to me, distinctly mid.
I still have my grandfather's watch, and while it's worthless, it tells the time well enough. It will be ticking along long after I am dead. There is something romantic about time and timelessness, which watches provide, while smart watches - dead or obsolete in a few years - do not. I'm in love with the romance of watches, which makes me just as odd as a MAMIL obsessed with his step count. But I find no romance in smart watches, which are disposable bits of kit, as opposed to marvels of mechanical engineering or heirlooms to be passed from father to son.
As I say, nothing wrong with smart watches - they're just not for me.
That's quite an entertaining rant, except for the fact you can use these watches as just watches to tell the time, with no tracking, stepcounts etc. from memory, on Garmin at least, you need to enable much of this stuff. (Apple may be different).
And before you say that you're paying a lot for 'just a watch'; just look at Rolex et al.
You seem personally insulted, despite the fact I go out of my way to point out it's horses for courses all the way through.
I'm a watch collector (a nerd?! on PB? never!) and would never own a smartwatch. As I say, I'm in love with the romance of the history, the mechanical engineering, and so on. A less kind analysis would say that watches are to men what handbags are to women. Though most of my watches are in the £250-1500 bracket, save for a couple of grail pieces.
I gain no pleasure from having my body functions tracked via my wrist or having notifications appear on it while I'm at dinner. I do like the idea that some of the watches I have I will have worn for sixty or more years before I die, and have watches that my forefathers owned. But as I say, it's horses for courses. If your smartwatch gives you pleasure, wear it.
I do not own a Rolex.
I have a fitbit tracker thing in my right wrist and a fancier watch for my left wrist and a pocket watch from my wife for our marriage. I even have a pocket sundial (not so useful in Ireland). I'd love to collect a few more fancy mechanical watches. I might upgrade to a fancier hiking smartwatch at some point.
I don't see any conflict between the two types of devices.
Absolutely - good compromise, that! If I ever felt the need to track my heart rate etc that's what I would do, too.
I totally see why people who value the functionality of a smartwatch rave about them. But I wouldn't wear one to a black tie do (the last black tie do I went to, I wore a £150 Orient Bambino).
To those who don't see the sentimentality in mechanical watches or the history in them, I ask you - would Christopher Walken have stuffed a Garmin up his ass and kept it there for two years to make sure it was passed down to Bruce Willis?
That's the power of watches. They travel with us, through time.
That's the power of jewelry, surely?
Because that's what a nice Omega is. I wore one because it looked good, and it made me look good.
As I've gotten older and more health conscious, and less concerned about what others think about me - or, to put it another way, as I'm no longer looking to attract a mate - then a Garmin suited me better.
But horses for courses.
I simply love watches and clocks - I'd not actually wear one for all the cash in China/Smithson Bank Accounts (whichever is the larger)
We have a massive old flat clock on our wall, maybe 4 feet diameter. I like it very much.
I bought someone one like that - I hadn't paid attention to the description and assumed it was a regular size and we had to scramble around to find a clear patch of wall it would fit.
On topic - Every candidate takes centre stage and immediately loses momentum. I'm not sure thats an encouraging situation for the future of the Con Party. Still if Kemi can win out it will at least make some people happy.
Starmer, Farage, Davey - to name just three
I'd much prefer her to miss out this time and get it in 2-3 years.
Including flights and accommodation I might just have crept over my £400 Geneva budget
If you are of a certain mindset, you might find yourself getting a little obsessed with metrics. "I must beat my step count!!!" is a beginners=level one.
Enjoy Geneva.
These things are amazeybollox
It’s like having a little genie tugging at your arm. “Don’t miss your flight!”
Did you miss many flights without it?
I find people who actually enjoy being buzzed by constant notifications very weird - my phone is permanently on silent - and even weirder when people enjoy constant notifications on the wrist.
Sort of like how it suddenly became acceptable to use your phone at the dinner table in the late 2000s. The idea that you're less present and in the moment and more attached to the tech that's telling you what to do or how to behave.
If I live to be 180, I will still never own a "smart" watch. My watch tells the time. Nothing more, nothing less.
And if that works for you, cool.
Alerts are configurable. Just about everything on such watches (Garmin, Apple or whatever...) is configurable. Mrs J has her watch much more tightly tied down (not linked to any other accounts) than I have.
Oh, I get it. Leon absolutely nails it when he says smart watches are for centrist dads. They are for MAMIL types who obsess over their step count, or how much REM sleep they got last night. People who will bore you about their gore-tex clobber they bought for their latest hike across the peaks. They have a catchment, and more power to the people who enjoy them. Nothing wrong with being a MAMIL who's into gore-tex. Many of my friends are. But I prefer a life without being buzzed, or tracked.
I was thinking about the Tory guy who was wearing a rolex in the winter fuel allowance video the other day. Datejusts were de rigeur for men in their 30s/40s in the 80s, which is why they are such an old man watch now. There are photos of datejusts with their early 80s price tags still attached - about £600. But a watch like that will travel through time with you, and be something you can pass along to your children - while during the same number of years, between eight and twenty iterations of the Apple SmartWatch will be thrown on a landfill somewhere. They are, to me, distinctly mid.
I still have my grandfather's watch, and while it's worthless, it tells the time well enough. It will be ticking along long after I am dead. There is something romantic about time and timelessness, which watches provide, while smart watches - dead or obsolete in a few years - do not. I'm in love with the romance of watches, which makes me just as odd as a MAMIL obsessed with his step count. But I find no romance in smart watches, which are disposable bits of kit, as opposed to marvels of mechanical engineering or heirlooms to be passed from father to son.
As I say, nothing wrong with smart watches - they're just not for me.
That's quite an entertaining rant, except for the fact you can use these watches as just watches to tell the time, with no tracking, stepcounts etc. from memory, on Garmin at least, you need to enable much of this stuff. (Apple may be different).
And before you say that you're paying a lot for 'just a watch'; just look at Rolex et al.
You seem personally insulted, despite the fact I go out of my way to point out it's horses for courses all the way through.
I'm a watch collector (a nerd?! on PB? never!) and would never own a smartwatch. As I say, I'm in love with the romance of the history, the mechanical engineering, and so on. A less kind analysis would say that watches are to men what handbags are to women. Though most of my watches are in the £250-1500 bracket, save for a couple of grail pieces.
I gain no pleasure from having my body functions tracked via my wrist or having notifications appear on it while I'm at dinner. I do like the idea that some of the watches I have I will have worn for sixty or more years before I die, and have watches that my forefathers owned. But as I say, it's horses for courses. If your smartwatch gives you pleasure, wear it.
I do not own a Rolex.
I have a fitbit tracker thing in my right wrist and a fancier watch for my left wrist and a pocket watch from my wife for our marriage. I even have a pocket sundial (not so useful in Ireland). I'd love to collect a few more fancy mechanical watches. I might upgrade to a fancier hiking smartwatch at some point.
I don't see any conflict between the two types of devices.
How does a pocket sundial work, please? Does it have a built-in compass?
You put it in your back pocket and you can tell the time if the sun shines out of your arse.
Including flights and accommodation I might just have crept over my £400 Geneva budget
If you are of a certain mindset, you might find yourself getting a little obsessed with metrics. "I must beat my step count!!!" is a beginners=level one.
Enjoy Geneva.
These things are amazeybollox
It’s like having a little genie tugging at your arm. “Don’t miss your flight!”
Did you miss many flights without it?
I find people who actually enjoy being buzzed by constant notifications very weird - my phone is permanently on silent - and even weirder when people enjoy constant notifications on the wrist.
Sort of like how it suddenly became acceptable to use your phone at the dinner table in the late 2000s. The idea that you're less present and in the moment and more attached to the tech that's telling you what to do or how to behave.
If I live to be 180, I will still never own a "smart" watch. My watch tells the time. Nothing more, nothing less.
And if that works for you, cool.
Alerts are configurable. Just about everything on such watches (Garmin, Apple or whatever...) is configurable. Mrs J has her watch much more tightly tied down (not linked to any other accounts) than I have.
Oh, I get it. Leon absolutely nails it when he says smart watches are for centrist dads. They are for MAMIL types who obsess over their step count, or how much REM sleep they got last night. People who will bore you about their gore-tex clobber they bought for their latest hike across the peaks. They have a catchment, and more power to the people who enjoy them. Nothing wrong with being a MAMIL who's into gore-tex. Many of my friends are. But I prefer a life without being buzzed, or tracked.
I was thinking about the Tory guy who was wearing a rolex in the winter fuel allowance video the other day. Datejusts were de rigeur for men in their 30s/40s in the 80s, which is why they are such an old man watch now. There are photos of datejusts with their early 80s price tags still attached - about £600. But a watch like that will travel through time with you, and be something you can pass along to your children - while during the same number of years, between eight and twenty iterations of the Apple SmartWatch will be thrown on a landfill somewhere. They are, to me, distinctly mid.
I still have my grandfather's watch, and while it's worthless, it tells the time well enough. It will be ticking along long after I am dead. There is something romantic about time and timelessness, which watches provide, while smart watches - dead or obsolete in a few years - do not. I'm in love with the romance of watches, which makes me just as odd as a MAMIL obsessed with his step count. But I find no romance in smart watches, which are disposable bits of kit, as opposed to marvels of mechanical engineering or heirlooms to be passed from father to son.
As I say, nothing wrong with smart watches - they're just not for me.
That's quite an entertaining rant, except for the fact you can use these watches as just watches to tell the time, with no tracking, stepcounts etc. from memory, on Garmin at least, you need to enable much of this stuff. (Apple may be different).
And before you say that you're paying a lot for 'just a watch'; just look at Rolex et al.
You seem personally insulted, despite the fact I go out of my way to point out it's horses for courses all the way through.
I'm a watch collector (a nerd?! on PB? never!) and would never own a smartwatch. As I say, I'm in love with the romance of the history, the mechanical engineering, and so on. A less kind analysis would say that watches are to men what handbags are to women. Though most of my watches are in the £250-1500 bracket, save for a couple of grail pieces.
I gain no pleasure from having my body functions tracked via my wrist or having notifications appear on it while I'm at dinner. I do like the idea that some of the watches I have I will have worn for sixty or more years before I die, and have watches that my forefathers owned. But as I say, it's horses for courses. If your smartwatch gives you pleasure, wear it.
I do not own a Rolex.
I have a fitbit tracker thing in my right wrist and a fancier watch for my left wrist and a pocket watch from my wife for our marriage. I even have a pocket sundial (not so useful in Ireland). I'd love to collect a few more fancy mechanical watches. I might upgrade to a fancier hiking smartwatch at some point.
I don't see any conflict between the two types of devices.
Have you got the time?
Ah, but which time?
I have an app on my phone that will use my location to tell me local mean solar time. My wife isn't that happy about my plan to have at least three clocks in our house, assuming we eventually buy one. One telling local legal time (daylight savings changes and all), one for UTC (i.e. server time), and one for local mean solar time (I thought I'd find a clock with a 24 hour face for that one).
Including flights and accommodation I might just have crept over my £400 Geneva budget
If you are of a certain mindset, you might find yourself getting a little obsessed with metrics. "I must beat my step count!!!" is a beginners=level one.
Enjoy Geneva.
These things are amazeybollox
It’s like having a little genie tugging at your arm. “Don’t miss your flight!”
Did you miss many flights without it?
I find people who actually enjoy being buzzed by constant notifications very weird - my phone is permanently on silent - and even weirder when people enjoy constant notifications on the wrist.
Sort of like how it suddenly became acceptable to use your phone at the dinner table in the late 2000s. The idea that you're less present and in the moment and more attached to the tech that's telling you what to do or how to behave.
If I live to be 180, I will still never own a "smart" watch. My watch tells the time. Nothing more, nothing less.
And if that works for you, cool.
Alerts are configurable. Just about everything on such watches (Garmin, Apple or whatever...) is configurable. Mrs J has her watch much more tightly tied down (not linked to any other accounts) than I have.
Oh, I get it. Leon absolutely nails it when he says smart watches are for centrist dads. They are for MAMIL types who obsess over their step count, or how much REM sleep they got last night. People who will bore you about their gore-tex clobber they bought for their latest hike across the peaks. They have a catchment, and more power to the people who enjoy them. Nothing wrong with being a MAMIL who's into gore-tex. Many of my friends are. But I prefer a life without being buzzed, or tracked.
I was thinking about the Tory guy who was wearing a rolex in the winter fuel allowance video the other day. Datejusts were de rigeur for men in their 30s/40s in the 80s, which is why they are such an old man watch now. There are photos of datejusts with their early 80s price tags still attached - about £600. But a watch like that will travel through time with you, and be something you can pass along to your children - while during the same number of years, between eight and twenty iterations of the Apple SmartWatch will be thrown on a landfill somewhere. They are, to me, distinctly mid.
I still have my grandfather's watch, and while it's worthless, it tells the time well enough. It will be ticking along long after I am dead. There is something romantic about time and timelessness, which watches provide, while smart watches - dead or obsolete in a few years - do not. I'm in love with the romance of watches, which makes me just as odd as a MAMIL obsessed with his step count. But I find no romance in smart watches, which are disposable bits of kit, as opposed to marvels of mechanical engineering or heirlooms to be passed from father to son.
As I say, nothing wrong with smart watches - they're just not for me.
That's quite an entertaining rant, except for the fact you can use these watches as just watches to tell the time, with no tracking, stepcounts etc. from memory, on Garmin at least, you need to enable much of this stuff. (Apple may be different).
And before you say that you're paying a lot for 'just a watch'; just look at Rolex et al.
You seem personally insulted, despite the fact I go out of my way to point out it's horses for courses all the way through.
I'm a watch collector (a nerd?! on PB? never!) and would never own a smartwatch. As I say, I'm in love with the romance of the history, the mechanical engineering, and so on. A less kind analysis would say that watches are to men what handbags are to women. Though most of my watches are in the £250-1500 bracket, save for a couple of grail pieces.
I gain no pleasure from having my body functions tracked via my wrist or having notifications appear on it while I'm at dinner. I do like the idea that some of the watches I have I will have worn for sixty or more years before I die, and have watches that my forefathers owned. But as I say, it's horses for courses. If your smartwatch gives you pleasure, wear it.
I do not own a Rolex.
I have a fitbit tracker thing in my right wrist and a fancier watch for my left wrist and a pocket watch from my wife for our marriage. I even have a pocket sundial (not so useful in Ireland). I'd love to collect a few more fancy mechanical watches. I might upgrade to a fancier hiking smartwatch at some point.
I don't see any conflict between the two types of devices.
Absolutely - good compromise, that! If I ever felt the need to track my heart rate etc that's what I would do, too.
I totally see why people who value the functionality of a smartwatch rave about them. But I wouldn't wear one to a black tie do (the last black tie do I went to, I wore a £150 Orient Bambino).
To those who don't see the sentimentality in mechanical watches or the history in them, I ask you - would Christopher Walken have stuffed a Garmin up his ass and kept it there for two years to make sure it was passed down to Bruce Willis?
That's the power of watches. They travel with us, through time.
That's the power of jewelry, surely?
Because that's what a nice Omega is. I wore one because it looked good, and it made me look good.
As I've gotten older and more health conscious, and less concerned about what others think about me - or, to put it another way, as I'm no longer looking to attract a mate - then a Garmin suited me better.
But horses for courses.
I simply love watches and clocks - I'd not actually wear one for all the cash in China/Smithson Bank Accounts (whichever is the larger)
We have a massive old flat clock on our wall, maybe 4 feet diameter. I like it very much.
We have an old brass-case Smiths (*) clock on the wall; got from a ship's engine room. It has the minutes in large numbers (5 to 60 in five intervals), rather than the hours (1 to 12), as enginemen were more bothered about things happening at regular intervals throughout the hour. I think it's quite unusual to have a clock where the minutes are more prominent on the dial than the hours?
Some of my earliest memories are of my dad winding it each morning, and it's a tradition I try to maintain to this day. Sadly, I think it needs to go in for some maintenance.
Farage: "Jenrick tried to be Nigel Farage. I can coach, give him lessons if he wants. But you can't out Farage Farage." (Daily Mail video clip of interview)
One thing I will say in Badenoch’s favour is that the political debate is unlikely to be dull with her leading the Tories. There is, for all her faults, a maverick quality to her and it is in some ways refreshing that she moves the debate in interesting directions.
Her issue is that I don’t think she possesses the sharpness of political instinct to know which of these battles to fight, as shown by the news stories that came out over conference. As a result it’s entirely plausible that it becomes a gaffe-a-week.
Including flights and accommodation I might just have crept over my £400 Geneva budget
If you are of a certain mindset, you might find yourself getting a little obsessed with metrics. "I must beat my step count!!!" is a beginners=level one.
Enjoy Geneva.
These things are amazeybollox
It’s like having a little genie tugging at your arm. “Don’t miss your flight!”
Did you miss many flights without it?
I find people who actually enjoy being buzzed by constant notifications very weird - my phone is permanently on silent - and even weirder when people enjoy constant notifications on the wrist.
Sort of like how it suddenly became acceptable to use your phone at the dinner table in the late 2000s. The idea that you're less present and in the moment and more attached to the tech that's telling you what to do or how to behave.
If I live to be 180, I will still never own a "smart" watch. My watch tells the time. Nothing more, nothing less.
And if that works for you, cool.
Alerts are configurable. Just about everything on such watches (Garmin, Apple or whatever...) is configurable. Mrs J has her watch much more tightly tied down (not linked to any other accounts) than I have.
Oh, I get it. Leon absolutely nails it when he says smart watches are for centrist dads. They are for MAMIL types who obsess over their step count, or how much REM sleep they got last night. People who will bore you about their gore-tex clobber they bought for their latest hike across the peaks. They have a catchment, and more power to the people who enjoy them. Nothing wrong with being a MAMIL who's into gore-tex. Many of my friends are. But I prefer a life without being buzzed, or tracked.
I was thinking about the Tory guy who was wearing a rolex in the winter fuel allowance video the other day. Datejusts were de rigeur for men in their 30s/40s in the 80s, which is why they are such an old man watch now. There are photos of datejusts with their early 80s price tags still attached - about £600. But a watch like that will travel through time with you, and be something you can pass along to your children - while during the same number of years, between eight and twenty iterations of the Apple SmartWatch will be thrown on a landfill somewhere. They are, to me, distinctly mid.
I still have my grandfather's watch, and while it's worthless, it tells the time well enough. It will be ticking along long after I am dead. There is something romantic about time and timelessness, which watches provide, while smart watches - dead or obsolete in a few years - do not. I'm in love with the romance of watches, which makes me just as odd as a MAMIL obsessed with his step count. But I find no romance in smart watches, which are disposable bits of kit, as opposed to marvels of mechanical engineering or heirlooms to be passed from father to son.
As I say, nothing wrong with smart watches - they're just not for me.
That's quite an entertaining rant, except for the fact you can use these watches as just watches to tell the time, with no tracking, stepcounts etc. from memory, on Garmin at least, you need to enable much of this stuff. (Apple may be different).
And before you say that you're paying a lot for 'just a watch'; just look at Rolex et al.
You seem personally insulted, despite the fact I go out of my way to point out it's horses for courses all the way through.
I'm a watch collector (a nerd?! on PB? never!) and would never own a smartwatch. As I say, I'm in love with the romance of the history, the mechanical engineering, and so on. A less kind analysis would say that watches are to men what handbags are to women. Though most of my watches are in the £250-1500 bracket, save for a couple of grail pieces.
I gain no pleasure from having my body functions tracked via my wrist or having notifications appear on it while I'm at dinner. I do like the idea that some of the watches I have I will have worn for sixty or more years before I die, and have watches that my forefathers owned. But as I say, it's horses for courses. If your smartwatch gives you pleasure, wear it.
I do not own a Rolex.
I have a fitbit tracker thing in my right wrist and a fancier watch for my left wrist and a pocket watch from my wife for our marriage. I even have a pocket sundial (not so useful in Ireland). I'd love to collect a few more fancy mechanical watches. I might upgrade to a fancier hiking smartwatch at some point.
I don't see any conflict between the two types of devices.
Absolutely - good compromise, that! If I ever felt the need to track my heart rate etc that's what I would do, too.
I totally see why people who value the functionality of a smartwatch rave about them. But I wouldn't wear one to a black tie do (the last black tie do I went to, I wore a £150 Orient Bambino).
To those who don't see the sentimentality in mechanical watches or the history in them, I ask you - would Christopher Walken have stuffed a Garmin up his ass and kept it there for two years to make sure it was passed down to Bruce Willis?
That's the power of watches. They travel with us, through time.
That's the power of jewelry, surely?
Because that's what a nice Omega is. I wore one because it looked good, and it made me look good.
As I've gotten older and more health conscious, and less concerned about what others think about me - or, to put it another way, as I'm no longer looking to attract a mate - then a Garmin suited me better.
But horses for courses.
As my previous comment, "watches are handbags for men" ...though "watches are jewellery for men" would be just as appropriate. They're things us guys can get sentimentally attached to.
My speedy, I'm attached to. (Though the new FOIS has turned my head and made me wonder if it's time to swap). I can't ever imagine getting attached to a Garmin or iWatch with a three year lifespan in the same way.
It's definitely a slow news day on PB when we're into watches for two days running...
I confess to having had a post-election PB ease down.
The fact that the US election seems to be in stasis hasn't helped - nothing seems to be happening and we all remain in total ignorance regarding which way it might fall. The stakes couldn't be higher but the signs couldn't be less clear.
Including flights and accommodation I might just have crept over my £400 Geneva budget
If you are of a certain mindset, you might find yourself getting a little obsessed with metrics. "I must beat my step count!!!" is a beginners=level one.
Enjoy Geneva.
These things are amazeybollox
It’s like having a little genie tugging at your arm. “Don’t miss your flight!”
Did you miss many flights without it?
I find people who actually enjoy being buzzed by constant notifications very weird - my phone is permanently on silent - and even weirder when people enjoy constant notifications on the wrist.
Sort of like how it suddenly became acceptable to use your phone at the dinner table in the late 2000s. The idea that you're less present and in the moment and more attached to the tech that's telling you what to do or how to behave.
If I live to be 180, I will still never own a "smart" watch. My watch tells the time. Nothing more, nothing less.
And if that works for you, cool.
Alerts are configurable. Just about everything on such watches (Garmin, Apple or whatever...) is configurable. Mrs J has her watch much more tightly tied down (not linked to any other accounts) than I have.
Oh, I get it. Leon absolutely nails it when he says smart watches are for centrist dads. They are for MAMIL types who obsess over their step count, or how much REM sleep they got last night. People who will bore you about their gore-tex clobber they bought for their latest hike across the peaks. They have a catchment, and more power to the people who enjoy them. Nothing wrong with being a MAMIL who's into gore-tex. Many of my friends are. But I prefer a life without being buzzed, or tracked.
I was thinking about the Tory guy who was wearing a rolex in the winter fuel allowance video the other day. Datejusts were de rigeur for men in their 30s/40s in the 80s, which is why they are such an old man watch now. There are photos of datejusts with their early 80s price tags still attached - about £600. But a watch like that will travel through time with you, and be something you can pass along to your children - while during the same number of years, between eight and twenty iterations of the Apple SmartWatch will be thrown on a landfill somewhere. They are, to me, distinctly mid.
I still have my grandfather's watch, and while it's worthless, it tells the time well enough. It will be ticking along long after I am dead. There is something romantic about time and timelessness, which watches provide, while smart watches - dead or obsolete in a few years - do not. I'm in love with the romance of watches, which makes me just as odd as a MAMIL obsessed with his step count. But I find no romance in smart watches, which are disposable bits of kit, as opposed to marvels of mechanical engineering or heirlooms to be passed from father to son.
As I say, nothing wrong with smart watches - they're just not for me.
That's quite an entertaining rant, except for the fact you can use these watches as just watches to tell the time, with no tracking, stepcounts etc. from memory, on Garmin at least, you need to enable much of this stuff. (Apple may be different).
And before you say that you're paying a lot for 'just a watch'; just look at Rolex et al.
You seem personally insulted, despite the fact I go out of my way to point out it's horses for courses all the way through.
I'm a watch collector (a nerd?! on PB? never!) and would never own a smartwatch. As I say, I'm in love with the romance of the history, the mechanical engineering, and so on. A less kind analysis would say that watches are to men what handbags are to women. Though most of my watches are in the £250-1500 bracket, save for a couple of grail pieces.
I gain no pleasure from having my body functions tracked via my wrist or having notifications appear on it while I'm at dinner. I do like the idea that some of the watches I have I will have worn for sixty or more years before I die, and have watches that my forefathers owned. But as I say, it's horses for courses. If your smartwatch gives you pleasure, wear it.
I do not own a Rolex.
I have a fitbit tracker thing in my right wrist and a fancier watch for my left wrist and a pocket watch from my wife for our marriage. I even have a pocket sundial (not so useful in Ireland). I'd love to collect a few more fancy mechanical watches. I might upgrade to a fancier hiking smartwatch at some point.
I don't see any conflict between the two types of devices.
Absolutely - good compromise, that! If I ever felt the need to track my heart rate etc that's what I would do, too.
I totally see why people who value the functionality of a smartwatch rave about them. But I wouldn't wear one to a black tie do (the last black tie do I went to, I wore a £150 Orient Bambino).
To those who don't see the sentimentality in mechanical watches or the history in them, I ask you - would Christopher Walken have stuffed a Garmin up his ass and kept it there for two years to make sure it was passed down to Bruce Willis?
That's the power of watches. They travel with us, through time.
That's the power of jewelry, surely?
Because that's what a nice Omega is. I wore one because it looked good, and it made me look good.
As I've gotten older and more health conscious, and less concerned about what others think about me - or, to put it another way, as I'm no longer looking to attract a mate - then a Garmin suited me better.
But horses for courses.
I simply love watches and clocks - I'd not actually wear one for all the cash in China/Smithson Bank Accounts (whichever is the larger)
We have a massive old flat clock on our wall, maybe 4 feet diameter. I like it very much.
I bought someone one like that - I hadn't paid attention to the description and assumed it was a regular size and we had to scramble around to find a clear patch of wall it would fit.
And very heavy. It was a devil of a job to hang. I managed it but doubt I could now.
Farage: "Jenrick tried to be Nigel Farage. I can coach, give him lessons if he wants. But you can't out Farage Farage." (Daily Mail video clip of interview)
Farage seems to want Cleverly as opponent.
He is also reminding the Tories he is an upgraded equivalent to someone they may choose. He wants to lead the Conservative party rather than Reform.
Including flights and accommodation I might just have crept over my £400 Geneva budget
If you are of a certain mindset, you might find yourself getting a little obsessed with metrics. "I must beat my step count!!!" is a beginners=level one.
Enjoy Geneva.
These things are amazeybollox
It’s like having a little genie tugging at your arm. “Don’t miss your flight!”
Did you miss many flights without it?
I find people who actually enjoy being buzzed by constant notifications very weird - my phone is permanently on silent - and even weirder when people enjoy constant notifications on the wrist.
Sort of like how it suddenly became acceptable to use your phone at the dinner table in the late 2000s. The idea that you're less present and in the moment and more attached to the tech that's telling you what to do or how to behave.
If I live to be 180, I will still never own a "smart" watch. My watch tells the time. Nothing more, nothing less.
And if that works for you, cool.
Alerts are configurable. Just about everything on such watches (Garmin, Apple or whatever...) is configurable. Mrs J has her watch much more tightly tied down (not linked to any other accounts) than I have.
Oh, I get it. Leon absolutely nails it when he says smart watches are for centrist dads. They are for MAMIL types who obsess over their step count, or how much REM sleep they got last night. People who will bore you about their gore-tex clobber they bought for their latest hike across the peaks. They have a catchment, and more power to the people who enjoy them. Nothing wrong with being a MAMIL who's into gore-tex. Many of my friends are. But I prefer a life without being buzzed, or tracked.
I was thinking about the Tory guy who was wearing a rolex in the winter fuel allowance video the other day. Datejusts were de rigeur for men in their 30s/40s in the 80s, which is why they are such an old man watch now. There are photos of datejusts with their early 80s price tags still attached - about £600. But a watch like that will travel through time with you, and be something you can pass along to your children - while during the same number of years, between eight and twenty iterations of the Apple SmartWatch will be thrown on a landfill somewhere. They are, to me, distinctly mid.
I still have my grandfather's watch, and while it's worthless, it tells the time well enough. It will be ticking along long after I am dead. There is something romantic about time and timelessness, which watches provide, while smart watches - dead or obsolete in a few years - do not. I'm in love with the romance of watches, which makes me just as odd as a MAMIL obsessed with his step count. But I find no romance in smart watches, which are disposable bits of kit, as opposed to marvels of mechanical engineering or heirlooms to be passed from father to son.
As I say, nothing wrong with smart watches - they're just not for me.
That's quite an entertaining rant, except for the fact you can use these watches as just watches to tell the time, with no tracking, stepcounts etc. from memory, on Garmin at least, you need to enable much of this stuff. (Apple may be different).
And before you say that you're paying a lot for 'just a watch'; just look at Rolex et al.
You seem personally insulted, despite the fact I go out of my way to point out it's horses for courses all the way through.
I'm a watch collector (a nerd?! on PB? never!) and would never own a smartwatch. As I say, I'm in love with the romance of the history, the mechanical engineering, and so on. A less kind analysis would say that watches are to men what handbags are to women. Though most of my watches are in the £250-1500 bracket, save for a couple of grail pieces.
I gain no pleasure from having my body functions tracked via my wrist or having notifications appear on it while I'm at dinner. I do like the idea that some of the watches I have I will have worn for sixty or more years before I die, and have watches that my forefathers owned. But as I say, it's horses for courses. If your smartwatch gives you pleasure, wear it.
I do not own a Rolex.
I have a fitbit tracker thing in my right wrist and a fancier watch for my left wrist and a pocket watch from my wife for our marriage. I even have a pocket sundial (not so useful in Ireland). I'd love to collect a few more fancy mechanical watches. I might upgrade to a fancier hiking smartwatch at some point.
I don't see any conflict between the two types of devices.
Absolutely - good compromise, that! If I ever felt the need to track my heart rate etc that's what I would do, too.
I totally see why people who value the functionality of a smartwatch rave about them. But I wouldn't wear one to a black tie do (the last black tie do I went to, I wore a £150 Orient Bambino).
To those who don't see the sentimentality in mechanical watches or the history in them, I ask you - would Christopher Walken have stuffed a Garmin up his ass and kept it there for two years to make sure it was passed down to Bruce Willis?
That's the power of watches. They travel with us, through time.
That's the power of jewelry, surely?
Because that's what a nice Omega is. I wore one because it looked good, and it made me look good.
As I've gotten older and more health conscious, and less concerned about what others think about me - or, to put it another way, as I'm no longer looking to attract a mate - then a Garmin suited me better.
But horses for courses.
I simply love watches and clocks - I'd not actually wear one for all the cash in China/Smithson Bank Accounts (whichever is the larger)
We have a massive old flat clock on our wall, maybe 4 feet diameter. I like it very much.
We have an old brass-case Smiths (*) clock on the wall; got from a ship's engine room. It has the minutes in large numbers (5 to 60 in five intervals), rather than the hours (1 to 12), as enginemen were more bothered about things happening at regular intervals throughout the hour. I think it's quite unusual to have a clock where the minutes are more prominent on the dial than the hours?
Some of my earliest memories are of my dad winding it each morning, and it's a tradition I try to maintain to this day. Sadly, I think it needs to go in for some maintenance.
(*) Smiths of Derby
That sounds a fantastic piece. Ours is with hands and has Roman numerals.
On subject of clocks, I have an old electric clock that is pretty much old-time junk . . . EXCEPT that it is embedded in a bronze artwork (broadly defined) depicting Franklin D. Roosevelt standing (ahem) behind a ship's wheel, apparently Steering the Ship of State . . . and flanked by George Washington and Abraham Lincoln and labeled "Spirit of USA".
Clearly an item marketed to and acquired by ardent New Deal Democats circa 1936. Ugly as sin, but a genuine historico-politico artifact.
I took some Kemi off around 3 (although I'm still overweight her compared to the others). Let's not get too carried away - Bastard is still 1 vote ahead remember.
Including flights and accommodation I might just have crept over my £400 Geneva budget
If you are of a certain mindset, you might find yourself getting a little obsessed with metrics. "I must beat my step count!!!" is a beginners=level one.
Enjoy Geneva.
These things are amazeybollox
It’s like having a little genie tugging at your arm. “Don’t miss your flight!”
Did you miss many flights without it?
I find people who actually enjoy being buzzed by constant notifications very weird - my phone is permanently on silent - and even weirder when people enjoy constant notifications on the wrist.
Sort of like how it suddenly became acceptable to use your phone at the dinner table in the late 2000s. The idea that you're less present and in the moment and more attached to the tech that's telling you what to do or how to behave.
If I live to be 180, I will still never own a "smart" watch. My watch tells the time. Nothing more, nothing less.
And if that works for you, cool.
Alerts are configurable. Just about everything on such watches (Garmin, Apple or whatever...) is configurable. Mrs J has her watch much more tightly tied down (not linked to any other accounts) than I have.
Oh, I get it. Leon absolutely nails it when he says smart watches are for centrist dads. They are for MAMIL types who obsess over their step count, or how much REM sleep they got last night. People who will bore you about their gore-tex clobber they bought for their latest hike across the peaks. They have a catchment, and more power to the people who enjoy them. Nothing wrong with being a MAMIL who's into gore-tex. Many of my friends are. But I prefer a life without being buzzed, or tracked.
I was thinking about the Tory guy who was wearing a rolex in the winter fuel allowance video the other day. Datejusts were de rigeur for men in their 30s/40s in the 80s, which is why they are such an old man watch now. There are photos of datejusts with their early 80s price tags still attached - about £600. But a watch like that will travel through time with you, and be something you can pass along to your children - while during the same number of years, between eight and twenty iterations of the Apple SmartWatch will be thrown on a landfill somewhere. They are, to me, distinctly mid.
I still have my grandfather's watch, and while it's worthless, it tells the time well enough. It will be ticking along long after I am dead. There is something romantic about time and timelessness, which watches provide, while smart watches - dead or obsolete in a few years - do not. I'm in love with the romance of watches, which makes me just as odd as a MAMIL obsessed with his step count. But I find no romance in smart watches, which are disposable bits of kit, as opposed to marvels of mechanical engineering or heirlooms to be passed from father to son.
As I say, nothing wrong with smart watches - they're just not for me.
That's quite an entertaining rant, except for the fact you can use these watches as just watches to tell the time, with no tracking, stepcounts etc. from memory, on Garmin at least, you need to enable much of this stuff. (Apple may be different).
And before you say that you're paying a lot for 'just a watch'; just look at Rolex et al.
You seem personally insulted, despite the fact I go out of my way to point out it's horses for courses all the way through.
I'm a watch collector (a nerd?! on PB? never!) and would never own a smartwatch. As I say, I'm in love with the romance of the history, the mechanical engineering, and so on. A less kind analysis would say that watches are to men what handbags are to women. Though most of my watches are in the £250-1500 bracket, save for a couple of grail pieces.
I gain no pleasure from having my body functions tracked via my wrist or having notifications appear on it while I'm at dinner. I do like the idea that some of the watches I have I will have worn for sixty or more years before I die, and have watches that my forefathers owned. But as I say, it's horses for courses. If your smartwatch gives you pleasure, wear it.
I do not own a Rolex.
I have a fitbit tracker thing in my right wrist and a fancier watch for my left wrist and a pocket watch from my wife for our marriage. I even have a pocket sundial (not so useful in Ireland). I'd love to collect a few more fancy mechanical watches. I might upgrade to a fancier hiking smartwatch at some point.
I don't see any conflict between the two types of devices.
Absolutely - good compromise, that! If I ever felt the need to track my heart rate etc that's what I would do, too.
I totally see why people who value the functionality of a smartwatch rave about them. But I wouldn't wear one to a black tie do (the last black tie do I went to, I wore a £150 Orient Bambino).
To those who don't see the sentimentality in mechanical watches or the history in them, I ask you - would Christopher Walken have stuffed a Garmin up his ass and kept it there for two years to make sure it was passed down to Bruce Willis?
That's the power of watches. They travel with us, through time.
That's the power of jewelry, surely?
Because that's what a nice Omega is. I wore one because it looked good, and it made me look good.
As I've gotten older and more health conscious, and less concerned about what others think about me - or, to put it another way, as I'm no longer looking to attract a mate - then a Garmin suited me better.
But horses for courses.
I simply love watches and clocks - I'd not actually wear one for all the cash in China/Smithson Bank Accounts (whichever is the larger)
We have a massive old flat clock on our wall, maybe 4 feet diameter. I like it very much.
We have an 1840s wall clock, which still keeps perfect time. Will a smartwatch still do that in 2204?
Including flights and accommodation I might just have crept over my £400 Geneva budget
If you are of a certain mindset, you might find yourself getting a little obsessed with metrics. "I must beat my step count!!!" is a beginners=level one.
Enjoy Geneva.
These things are amazeybollox
It’s like having a little genie tugging at your arm. “Don’t miss your flight!”
Did you miss many flights without it?
I find people who actually enjoy being buzzed by constant notifications very weird - my phone is permanently on silent - and even weirder when people enjoy constant notifications on the wrist.
Sort of like how it suddenly became acceptable to use your phone at the dinner table in the late 2000s. The idea that you're less present and in the moment and more attached to the tech that's telling you what to do or how to behave.
If I live to be 180, I will still never own a "smart" watch. My watch tells the time. Nothing more, nothing less.
And if that works for you, cool.
Alerts are configurable. Just about everything on such watches (Garmin, Apple or whatever...) is configurable. Mrs J has her watch much more tightly tied down (not linked to any other accounts) than I have.
Oh, I get it. Leon absolutely nails it when he says smart watches are for centrist dads. They are for MAMIL types who obsess over their step count, or how much REM sleep they got last night. People who will bore you about their gore-tex clobber they bought for their latest hike across the peaks. They have a catchment, and more power to the people who enjoy them. Nothing wrong with being a MAMIL who's into gore-tex. Many of my friends are. But I prefer a life without being buzzed, or tracked.
I was thinking about the Tory guy who was wearing a rolex in the winter fuel allowance video the other day. Datejusts were de rigeur for men in their 30s/40s in the 80s, which is why they are such an old man watch now. There are photos of datejusts with their early 80s price tags still attached - about £600. But a watch like that will travel through time with you, and be something you can pass along to your children - while during the same number of years, between eight and twenty iterations of the Apple SmartWatch will be thrown on a landfill somewhere. They are, to me, distinctly mid.
I still have my grandfather's watch, and while it's worthless, it tells the time well enough. It will be ticking along long after I am dead. There is something romantic about time and timelessness, which watches provide, while smart watches - dead or obsolete in a few years - do not. I'm in love with the romance of watches, which makes me just as odd as a MAMIL obsessed with his step count. But I find no romance in smart watches, which are disposable bits of kit, as opposed to marvels of mechanical engineering or heirlooms to be passed from father to son.
As I say, nothing wrong with smart watches - they're just not for me.
That's quite an entertaining rant, except for the fact you can use these watches as just watches to tell the time, with no tracking, stepcounts etc. from memory, on Garmin at least, you need to enable much of this stuff. (Apple may be different).
And before you say that you're paying a lot for 'just a watch'; just look at Rolex et al.
You seem personally insulted, despite the fact I go out of my way to point out it's horses for courses all the way through.
I'm a watch collector (a nerd?! on PB? never!) and would never own a smartwatch. As I say, I'm in love with the romance of the history, the mechanical engineering, and so on. A less kind analysis would say that watches are to men what handbags are to women. Though most of my watches are in the £250-1500 bracket, save for a couple of grail pieces.
I gain no pleasure from having my body functions tracked via my wrist or having notifications appear on it while I'm at dinner. I do like the idea that some of the watches I have I will have worn for sixty or more years before I die, and have watches that my forefathers owned. But as I say, it's horses for courses. If your smartwatch gives you pleasure, wear it.
I do not own a Rolex.
I have a fitbit tracker thing in my right wrist and a fancier watch for my left wrist and a pocket watch from my wife for our marriage. I even have a pocket sundial (not so useful in Ireland). I'd love to collect a few more fancy mechanical watches. I might upgrade to a fancier hiking smartwatch at some point.
I don't see any conflict between the two types of devices.
Have you got the time?
Ah, but which time?
I have an app on my phone that will use my location to tell me local mean solar time. My wife isn't that happy about my plan to have at least three clocks in our house, assuming we eventually buy one. One telling local legal time (daylight savings changes and all), one for UTC (i.e. server time), and one for local mean solar time (I thought I'd find a clock with a 24 hour face for that one).
Well you need to work on her because that's a little bit inspired. I like the idea of many clocks all telling different sorts of time. Each one correct on its own terms.
Including flights and accommodation I might just have crept over my £400 Geneva budget
If you are of a certain mindset, you might find yourself getting a little obsessed with metrics. "I must beat my step count!!!" is a beginners=level one.
Enjoy Geneva.
These things are amazeybollox
It’s like having a little genie tugging at your arm. “Don’t miss your flight!”
Did you miss many flights without it?
I find people who actually enjoy being buzzed by constant notifications very weird - my phone is permanently on silent - and even weirder when people enjoy constant notifications on the wrist.
Sort of like how it suddenly became acceptable to use your phone at the dinner table in the late 2000s. The idea that you're less present and in the moment and more attached to the tech that's telling you what to do or how to behave.
If I live to be 180, I will still never own a "smart" watch. My watch tells the time. Nothing more, nothing less.
And if that works for you, cool.
Alerts are configurable. Just about everything on such watches (Garmin, Apple or whatever...) is configurable. Mrs J has her watch much more tightly tied down (not linked to any other accounts) than I have.
Oh, I get it. Leon absolutely nails it when he says smart watches are for centrist dads. They are for MAMIL types who obsess over their step count, or how much REM sleep they got last night. People who will bore you about their gore-tex clobber they bought for their latest hike across the peaks. They have a catchment, and more power to the people who enjoy them. Nothing wrong with being a MAMIL who's into gore-tex. Many of my friends are. But I prefer a life without being buzzed, or tracked.
I was thinking about the Tory guy who was wearing a rolex in the winter fuel allowance video the other day. Datejusts were de rigeur for men in their 30s/40s in the 80s, which is why they are such an old man watch now. There are photos of datejusts with their early 80s price tags still attached - about £600. But a watch like that will travel through time with you, and be something you can pass along to your children - while during the same number of years, between eight and twenty iterations of the Apple SmartWatch will be thrown on a landfill somewhere. They are, to me, distinctly mid.
I still have my grandfather's watch, and while it's worthless, it tells the time well enough. It will be ticking along long after I am dead. There is something romantic about time and timelessness, which watches provide, while smart watches - dead or obsolete in a few years - do not. I'm in love with the romance of watches, which makes me just as odd as a MAMIL obsessed with his step count. But I find no romance in smart watches, which are disposable bits of kit, as opposed to marvels of mechanical engineering or heirlooms to be passed from father to son.
As I say, nothing wrong with smart watches - they're just not for me.
The ridicule that MAMILs (and now smartwatch wearers) receive is, I suspect, a distinctly British phenomenon and comes from a inferiority complex when it comes to exercise and looking after your body.
If the NHS is to survive, we need many more people like Leon to get smartwatches and don the padded shorts, to buy the fancy storm jacket and head into the Peak District. Nothing better than seeing a bunch of overweight boomers desperately trying to make it over the Bealach na Ba.
The ridicule is not the exercise but the obsession with kit. I get just as much exercise on my £700 touring bike and my shorts and t-shirts as my mate on his £10000 bike and £1000+ of kit and accessories gets. And we don't have to stop when my tech goes wrong because I don't have any.
BUT do you have issuses with chaffing? Perhaps high-tech solution for THAT might do you some good!
As for your last point above, there's a Dutch woman with YouTube channel who motorcycles to the back of beyond . . . and then beyond that . . . who is having a bike designed for her, that eliminates most of the high-tech electronics in favor of low-tech reliability AND repair . . . especially in boondock/outback situations.
Bike tech Disc brakes - broadly +ve as long as you don't boil them or lose pressure E-shifting - why? Tubeless - total disaster
A bike with disc brakes, double or triple chainset on a Shimano sealed bottom bracket and 8 speed cassette will give you the best braking and a long lived drivetrain..
Including flights and accommodation I might just have crept over my £400 Geneva budget
If you are of a certain mindset, you might find yourself getting a little obsessed with metrics. "I must beat my step count!!!" is a beginners=level one.
Enjoy Geneva.
These things are amazeybollox
It’s like having a little genie tugging at your arm. “Don’t miss your flight!”
Did you miss many flights without it?
I find people who actually enjoy being buzzed by constant notifications very weird - my phone is permanently on silent - and even weirder when people enjoy constant notifications on the wrist.
Sort of like how it suddenly became acceptable to use your phone at the dinner table in the late 2000s. The idea that you're less present and in the moment and more attached to the tech that's telling you what to do or how to behave.
If I live to be 180, I will still never own a "smart" watch. My watch tells the time. Nothing more, nothing less.
And if that works for you, cool.
Alerts are configurable. Just about everything on such watches (Garmin, Apple or whatever...) is configurable. Mrs J has her watch much more tightly tied down (not linked to any other accounts) than I have.
Oh, I get it. Leon absolutely nails it when he says smart watches are for centrist dads. They are for MAMIL types who obsess over their step count, or how much REM sleep they got last night. People who will bore you about their gore-tex clobber they bought for their latest hike across the peaks. They have a catchment, and more power to the people who enjoy them. Nothing wrong with being a MAMIL who's into gore-tex. Many of my friends are. But I prefer a life without being buzzed, or tracked.
I was thinking about the Tory guy who was wearing a rolex in the winter fuel allowance video the other day. Datejusts were de rigeur for men in their 30s/40s in the 80s, which is why they are such an old man watch now. There are photos of datejusts with their early 80s price tags still attached - about £600. But a watch like that will travel through time with you, and be something you can pass along to your children - while during the same number of years, between eight and twenty iterations of the Apple SmartWatch will be thrown on a landfill somewhere. They are, to me, distinctly mid.
I still have my grandfather's watch, and while it's worthless, it tells the time well enough. It will be ticking along long after I am dead. There is something romantic about time and timelessness, which watches provide, while smart watches - dead or obsolete in a few years - do not. I'm in love with the romance of watches, which makes me just as odd as a MAMIL obsessed with his step count. But I find no romance in smart watches, which are disposable bits of kit, as opposed to marvels of mechanical engineering or heirlooms to be passed from father to son.
As I say, nothing wrong with smart watches - they're just not for me.
That's quite an entertaining rant, except for the fact you can use these watches as just watches to tell the time, with no tracking, stepcounts etc. from memory, on Garmin at least, you need to enable much of this stuff. (Apple may be different).
And before you say that you're paying a lot for 'just a watch'; just look at Rolex et al.
You seem personally insulted, despite the fact I go out of my way to point out it's horses for courses all the way through.
I'm a watch collector (a nerd?! on PB? never!) and would never own a smartwatch. As I say, I'm in love with the romance of the history, the mechanical engineering, and so on. A less kind analysis would say that watches are to men what handbags are to women. Though most of my watches are in the £250-1500 bracket, save for a couple of grail pieces.
I gain no pleasure from having my body functions tracked via my wrist or having notifications appear on it while I'm at dinner. I do like the idea that some of the watches I have I will have worn for sixty or more years before I die, and have watches that my forefathers owned. But as I say, it's horses for courses. If your smartwatch gives you pleasure, wear it.
I do not own a Rolex.
I have a fitbit tracker thing in my right wrist and a fancier watch for my left wrist and a pocket watch from my wife for our marriage. I even have a pocket sundial (not so useful in Ireland). I'd love to collect a few more fancy mechanical watches. I might upgrade to a fancier hiking smartwatch at some point.
I don't see any conflict between the two types of devices.
How does a pocket sundial work, please? Does it have a built-in compass?
You put it in your back pocket and you can tell the time if the sun shines out of your arse.
It’s a limited market, though. Only Cambridge educated lawyers, and possibly Leon.
Including flights and accommodation I might just have crept over my £400 Geneva budget
If you are of a certain mindset, you might find yourself getting a little obsessed with metrics. "I must beat my step count!!!" is a beginners=level one.
Enjoy Geneva.
These things are amazeybollox
It’s like having a little genie tugging at your arm. “Don’t miss your flight!”
Did you miss many flights without it?
I find people who actually enjoy being buzzed by constant notifications very weird - my phone is permanently on silent - and even weirder when people enjoy constant notifications on the wrist.
Sort of like how it suddenly became acceptable to use your phone at the dinner table in the late 2000s. The idea that you're less present and in the moment and more attached to the tech that's telling you what to do or how to behave.
If I live to be 180, I will still never own a "smart" watch. My watch tells the time. Nothing more, nothing less.
And if that works for you, cool.
Alerts are configurable. Just about everything on such watches (Garmin, Apple or whatever...) is configurable. Mrs J has her watch much more tightly tied down (not linked to any other accounts) than I have.
Oh, I get it. Leon absolutely nails it when he says smart watches are for centrist dads. They are for MAMIL types who obsess over their step count, or how much REM sleep they got last night. People who will bore you about their gore-tex clobber they bought for their latest hike across the peaks. They have a catchment, and more power to the people who enjoy them. Nothing wrong with being a MAMIL who's into gore-tex. Many of my friends are. But I prefer a life without being buzzed, or tracked.
I was thinking about the Tory guy who was wearing a rolex in the winter fuel allowance video the other day. Datejusts were de rigeur for men in their 30s/40s in the 80s, which is why they are such an old man watch now. There are photos of datejusts with their early 80s price tags still attached - about £600. But a watch like that will travel through time with you, and be something you can pass along to your children - while during the same number of years, between eight and twenty iterations of the Apple SmartWatch will be thrown on a landfill somewhere. They are, to me, distinctly mid.
I still have my grandfather's watch, and while it's worthless, it tells the time well enough. It will be ticking along long after I am dead. There is something romantic about time and timelessness, which watches provide, while smart watches - dead or obsolete in a few years - do not. I'm in love with the romance of watches, which makes me just as odd as a MAMIL obsessed with his step count. But I find no romance in smart watches, which are disposable bits of kit, as opposed to marvels of mechanical engineering or heirlooms to be passed from father to son.
As I say, nothing wrong with smart watches - they're just not for me.
That's quite an entertaining rant, except for the fact you can use these watches as just watches to tell the time, with no tracking, stepcounts etc. from memory, on Garmin at least, you need to enable much of this stuff. (Apple may be different).
And before you say that you're paying a lot for 'just a watch'; just look at Rolex et al.
You seem personally insulted, despite the fact I go out of my way to point out it's horses for courses all the way through.
I'm a watch collector (a nerd?! on PB? never!) and would never own a smartwatch. As I say, I'm in love with the romance of the history, the mechanical engineering, and so on. A less kind analysis would say that watches are to men what handbags are to women. Though most of my watches are in the £250-1500 bracket, save for a couple of grail pieces.
I gain no pleasure from having my body functions tracked via my wrist or having notifications appear on it while I'm at dinner. I do like the idea that some of the watches I have I will have worn for sixty or more years before I die, and have watches that my forefathers owned. But as I say, it's horses for courses. If your smartwatch gives you pleasure, wear it.
I do not own a Rolex.
I have a fitbit tracker thing in my right wrist and a fancier watch for my left wrist and a pocket watch from my wife for our marriage. I even have a pocket sundial (not so useful in Ireland). I'd love to collect a few more fancy mechanical watches. I might upgrade to a fancier hiking smartwatch at some point.
I don't see any conflict between the two types of devices.
Absolutely - good compromise, that! If I ever felt the need to track my heart rate etc that's what I would do, too.
I totally see why people who value the functionality of a smartwatch rave about them. But I wouldn't wear one to a black tie do (the last black tie do I went to, I wore a £150 Orient Bambino).
To those who don't see the sentimentality in mechanical watches or the history in them, I ask you - would Christopher Walken have stuffed a Garmin up his ass and kept it there for two years to make sure it was passed down to Bruce Willis?
That's the power of watches. They travel with us, through time.
That's the power of jewelry, surely?
Because that's what a nice Omega is. I wore one because it looked good, and it made me look good.
As I've gotten older and more health conscious, and less concerned about what others think about me - or, to put it another way, as I'm no longer looking to attract a mate - then a Garmin suited me better.
But horses for courses.
As my previous comment, "watches are handbags for men" ...though "watches are jewellery for men" would be just as appropriate. They're things us guys can get sentimentally attached to.
My speedy, I'm attached to. (Though the new FOIS has turned my head and made me wonder if it's time to swap). I can't ever imagine getting attached to a Garmin or iWatch with a three year lifespan in the same way.
It's definitely a slow news day on PB when we're into watches for two days running...
Rather shows the Tories diminished position in the scheme of things, doesn't it.
Including flights and accommodation I might just have crept over my £400 Geneva budget
If you are of a certain mindset, you might find yourself getting a little obsessed with metrics. "I must beat my step count!!!" is a beginners=level one.
Enjoy Geneva.
These things are amazeybollox
It’s like having a little genie tugging at your arm. “Don’t miss your flight!”
Did you miss many flights without it?
I find people who actually enjoy being buzzed by constant notifications very weird - my phone is permanently on silent - and even weirder when people enjoy constant notifications on the wrist.
Sort of like how it suddenly became acceptable to use your phone at the dinner table in the late 2000s. The idea that you're less present and in the moment and more attached to the tech that's telling you what to do or how to behave.
If I live to be 180, I will still never own a "smart" watch. My watch tells the time. Nothing more, nothing less.
And if that works for you, cool.
Alerts are configurable. Just about everything on such watches (Garmin, Apple or whatever...) is configurable. Mrs J has her watch much more tightly tied down (not linked to any other accounts) than I have.
Oh, I get it. Leon absolutely nails it when he says smart watches are for centrist dads. They are for MAMIL types who obsess over their step count, or how much REM sleep they got last night. People who will bore you about their gore-tex clobber they bought for their latest hike across the peaks. They have a catchment, and more power to the people who enjoy them. Nothing wrong with being a MAMIL who's into gore-tex. Many of my friends are. But I prefer a life without being buzzed, or tracked.
I was thinking about the Tory guy who was wearing a rolex in the winter fuel allowance video the other day. Datejusts were de rigeur for men in their 30s/40s in the 80s, which is why they are such an old man watch now. There are photos of datejusts with their early 80s price tags still attached - about £600. But a watch like that will travel through time with you, and be something you can pass along to your children - while during the same number of years, between eight and twenty iterations of the Apple SmartWatch will be thrown on a landfill somewhere. They are, to me, distinctly mid.
I still have my grandfather's watch, and while it's worthless, it tells the time well enough. It will be ticking along long after I am dead. There is something romantic about time and timelessness, which watches provide, while smart watches - dead or obsolete in a few years - do not. I'm in love with the romance of watches, which makes me just as odd as a MAMIL obsessed with his step count. But I find no romance in smart watches, which are disposable bits of kit, as opposed to marvels of mechanical engineering or heirlooms to be passed from father to son.
As I say, nothing wrong with smart watches - they're just not for me.
The ridicule that MAMILs (and now smartwatch wearers) receive is, I suspect, a distinctly British phenomenon and comes from a inferiority complex when it comes to exercise and looking after your body.
If the NHS is to survive, we need many more people like Leon to get smartwatches and don the padded shorts, to buy the fancy storm jacket and head into the Peak District. Nothing better than seeing a bunch of overweight boomers desperately trying to make it over the Bealach na Ba.
The ridicule is not the exercise but the obsession with kit. I get just as much exercise on my £700 touring bike and my shorts and t-shirts as my mate on his £10000 bike and £1000+ of kit and accessories gets. And we don't have to stop when my tech goes wrong because I don't have any.
BUT do you have issuses with chaffing? Perhaps high-tech solution for THAT might do you some good!
As for your last point above, there's a Dutch woman with YouTube channel who motorcycles to the back of beyond . . . and then beyond that . . . who is having a bike designed for her, that eliminates most of the high-tech electronics in favor of low-tech reliability AND repair . . . especially in boondock/outback situations.
Bike tech Disc brakes - broadly +ve as long as you don't boil them or lose pressure E-shifting - why? Tubeless - total disaster
A bike with disc brakes, double or triple chainset on a Shimano sealed bottom bracket and 8 speed cassette will give you the best braking and a long lived drivetrain..
Don't let DuraAce see that. A triple!
[Disclaimer: I have a 3x8 on my touring bike, because Yorkshire]
I took some Kemi off around 3 (although I'm still overweight her compared to the others). Let's not get too carried away - Bastard is still 1 vote ahead remember.
Including flights and accommodation I might just have crept over my £400 Geneva budget
If you are of a certain mindset, you might find yourself getting a little obsessed with metrics. "I must beat my step count!!!" is a beginners=level one.
Enjoy Geneva.
These things are amazeybollox
It’s like having a little genie tugging at your arm. “Don’t miss your flight!”
Did you miss many flights without it?
I find people who actually enjoy being buzzed by constant notifications very weird - my phone is permanently on silent - and even weirder when people enjoy constant notifications on the wrist.
Sort of like how it suddenly became acceptable to use your phone at the dinner table in the late 2000s. The idea that you're less present and in the moment and more attached to the tech that's telling you what to do or how to behave.
If I live to be 180, I will still never own a "smart" watch. My watch tells the time. Nothing more, nothing less.
And if that works for you, cool.
Alerts are configurable. Just about everything on such watches (Garmin, Apple or whatever...) is configurable. Mrs J has her watch much more tightly tied down (not linked to any other accounts) than I have.
Oh, I get it. Leon absolutely nails it when he says smart watches are for centrist dads. They are for MAMIL types who obsess over their step count, or how much REM sleep they got last night. People who will bore you about their gore-tex clobber they bought for their latest hike across the peaks. They have a catchment, and more power to the people who enjoy them. Nothing wrong with being a MAMIL who's into gore-tex. Many of my friends are. But I prefer a life without being buzzed, or tracked.
I was thinking about the Tory guy who was wearing a rolex in the winter fuel allowance video the other day. Datejusts were de rigeur for men in their 30s/40s in the 80s, which is why they are such an old man watch now. There are photos of datejusts with their early 80s price tags still attached - about £600. But a watch like that will travel through time with you, and be something you can pass along to your children - while during the same number of years, between eight and twenty iterations of the Apple SmartWatch will be thrown on a landfill somewhere. They are, to me, distinctly mid.
I still have my grandfather's watch, and while it's worthless, it tells the time well enough. It will be ticking along long after I am dead. There is something romantic about time and timelessness, which watches provide, while smart watches - dead or obsolete in a few years - do not. I'm in love with the romance of watches, which makes me just as odd as a MAMIL obsessed with his step count. But I find no romance in smart watches, which are disposable bits of kit, as opposed to marvels of mechanical engineering or heirlooms to be passed from father to son.
As I say, nothing wrong with smart watches - they're just not for me.
That's quite an entertaining rant, except for the fact you can use these watches as just watches to tell the time, with no tracking, stepcounts etc. from memory, on Garmin at least, you need to enable much of this stuff. (Apple may be different).
And before you say that you're paying a lot for 'just a watch'; just look at Rolex et al.
You seem personally insulted, despite the fact I go out of my way to point out it's horses for courses all the way through.
I'm a watch collector (a nerd?! on PB? never!) and would never own a smartwatch. As I say, I'm in love with the romance of the history, the mechanical engineering, and so on. A less kind analysis would say that watches are to men what handbags are to women. Though most of my watches are in the £250-1500 bracket, save for a couple of grail pieces.
I gain no pleasure from having my body functions tracked via my wrist or having notifications appear on it while I'm at dinner. I do like the idea that some of the watches I have I will have worn for sixty or more years before I die, and have watches that my forefathers owned. But as I say, it's horses for courses. If your smartwatch gives you pleasure, wear it.
I do not own a Rolex.
I have a fitbit tracker thing in my right wrist and a fancier watch for my left wrist and a pocket watch from my wife for our marriage. I even have a pocket sundial (not so useful in Ireland). I'd love to collect a few more fancy mechanical watches. I might upgrade to a fancier hiking smartwatch at some point.
I don't see any conflict between the two types of devices.
Absolutely - good compromise, that! If I ever felt the need to track my heart rate etc that's what I would do, too.
I totally see why people who value the functionality of a smartwatch rave about them. But I wouldn't wear one to a black tie do (the last black tie do I went to, I wore a £150 Orient Bambino).
To those who don't see the sentimentality in mechanical watches or the history in them, I ask you - would Christopher Walken have stuffed a Garmin up his ass and kept it there for two years to make sure it was passed down to Bruce Willis?
That's the power of watches. They travel with us, through time.
That's the power of jewelry, surely?
Because that's what a nice Omega is. I wore one because it looked good, and it made me look good.
As I've gotten older and more health conscious, and less concerned about what others think about me - or, to put it another way, as I'm no longer looking to attract a mate - then a Garmin suited me better.
But horses for courses.
As my previous comment, "watches are handbags for men" ...though "watches are jewellery for men" would be just as appropriate. They're things us guys can get sentimentally attached to.
My speedy, I'm attached to. (Though the new FOIS has turned my head and made me wonder if it's time to swap). I can't ever imagine getting attached to a Garmin or iWatch with a three year lifespan in the same way.
It's definitely a slow news day on PB when we're into watches for two days running...
Rather shows the Tories diminished position in the scheme of things, doesn't it.
The smart thing for the Tories to do right now is to skip the "lurch to the right, red meat for the 100,000 or so members but voter repellent to the general public" bit they went through last time and skip straight to the Michael Howard caretaker type leader who will allow someone more voter friendly to emerge.
I'm not sure they've got that, even with Cleverley, though he is the best of a rotten bunch.
Jenrick isn't even Hague territory - he's "imagine if Alan B'Stard was real and you elected him" territory.
Including flights and accommodation I might just have crept over my £400 Geneva budget
If you are of a certain mindset, you might find yourself getting a little obsessed with metrics. "I must beat my step count!!!" is a beginners=level one.
Enjoy Geneva.
These things are amazeybollox
It’s like having a little genie tugging at your arm. “Don’t miss your flight!”
Did you miss many flights without it?
I find people who actually enjoy being buzzed by constant notifications very weird - my phone is permanently on silent - and even weirder when people enjoy constant notifications on the wrist.
Sort of like how it suddenly became acceptable to use your phone at the dinner table in the late 2000s. The idea that you're less present and in the moment and more attached to the tech that's telling you what to do or how to behave.
If I live to be 180, I will still never own a "smart" watch. My watch tells the time. Nothing more, nothing less.
And if that works for you, cool.
Alerts are configurable. Just about everything on such watches (Garmin, Apple or whatever...) is configurable. Mrs J has her watch much more tightly tied down (not linked to any other accounts) than I have.
Oh, I get it. Leon absolutely nails it when he says smart watches are for centrist dads. They are for MAMIL types who obsess over their step count, or how much REM sleep they got last night. People who will bore you about their gore-tex clobber they bought for their latest hike across the peaks. They have a catchment, and more power to the people who enjoy them. Nothing wrong with being a MAMIL who's into gore-tex. Many of my friends are. But I prefer a life without being buzzed, or tracked.
I was thinking about the Tory guy who was wearing a rolex in the winter fuel allowance video the other day. Datejusts were de rigeur for men in their 30s/40s in the 80s, which is why they are such an old man watch now. There are photos of datejusts with their early 80s price tags still attached - about £600. But a watch like that will travel through time with you, and be something you can pass along to your children - while during the same number of years, between eight and twenty iterations of the Apple SmartWatch will be thrown on a landfill somewhere. They are, to me, distinctly mid.
I still have my grandfather's watch, and while it's worthless, it tells the time well enough. It will be ticking along long after I am dead. There is something romantic about time and timelessness, which watches provide, while smart watches - dead or obsolete in a few years - do not. I'm in love with the romance of watches, which makes me just as odd as a MAMIL obsessed with his step count. But I find no romance in smart watches, which are disposable bits of kit, as opposed to marvels of mechanical engineering or heirlooms to be passed from father to son.
As I say, nothing wrong with smart watches - they're just not for me.
That's quite an entertaining rant, except for the fact you can use these watches as just watches to tell the time, with no tracking, stepcounts etc. from memory, on Garmin at least, you need to enable much of this stuff. (Apple may be different).
And before you say that you're paying a lot for 'just a watch'; just look at Rolex et al.
You seem personally insulted, despite the fact I go out of my way to point out it's horses for courses all the way through.
I'm a watch collector (a nerd?! on PB? never!) and would never own a smartwatch. As I say, I'm in love with the romance of the history, the mechanical engineering, and so on. A less kind analysis would say that watches are to men what handbags are to women. Though most of my watches are in the £250-1500 bracket, save for a couple of grail pieces.
I gain no pleasure from having my body functions tracked via my wrist or having notifications appear on it while I'm at dinner. I do like the idea that some of the watches I have I will have worn for sixty or more years before I die, and have watches that my forefathers owned. But as I say, it's horses for courses. If your smartwatch gives you pleasure, wear it.
I do not own a Rolex.
I have a fitbit tracker thing in my right wrist and a fancier watch for my left wrist and a pocket watch from my wife for our marriage. I even have a pocket sundial (not so useful in Ireland). I'd love to collect a few more fancy mechanical watches. I might upgrade to a fancier hiking smartwatch at some point.
I don't see any conflict between the two types of devices.
How does a pocket sundial work, please? Does it have a built-in compass?
I haven't got my head around the trigonometry of it yet, but there's a central bit that you adjust depending on your latitude, and another bit that you adjust according to the date, and then you turn it until the sunlight shines through a hole onto the where you read the time off, and something about the interaction between where the hole is, and where the circle of the time is, means that you are pointing it in the right direction, without having a compass.
I took some Kemi off around 3 (although I'm still overweight her compared to the others). Let's not get too carried away - Bastard is still 1 vote ahead remember.
True. He has no longer got the Big Mo though.
The problem Jenrick has now is he’s slipping back, and the right of the party either has to back him and potentially back a losing horse in the member vote, or throw their lot in with Badenoch who may fare better with the members.
I’m prepared to have egg on my face but I can see Jenrick falling back again tomorrow and Kemi leapfrogging to second. I didn’t expect the vote result to be anything like it was today, but the prevailing mood feels like in a Cleverly v Jenrick battle it’s now Cleverly’s to lose - and I think that has been noticed by the right.
Including flights and accommodation I might just have crept over my £400 Geneva budget
If you are of a certain mindset, you might find yourself getting a little obsessed with metrics. "I must beat my step count!!!" is a beginners=level one.
Enjoy Geneva.
These things are amazeybollox
It’s like having a little genie tugging at your arm. “Don’t miss your flight!”
Did you miss many flights without it?
I find people who actually enjoy being buzzed by constant notifications very weird - my phone is permanently on silent - and even weirder when people enjoy constant notifications on the wrist.
Sort of like how it suddenly became acceptable to use your phone at the dinner table in the late 2000s. The idea that you're less present and in the moment and more attached to the tech that's telling you what to do or how to behave.
If I live to be 180, I will still never own a "smart" watch. My watch tells the time. Nothing more, nothing less.
And if that works for you, cool.
Alerts are configurable. Just about everything on such watches (Garmin, Apple or whatever...) is configurable. Mrs J has her watch much more tightly tied down (not linked to any other accounts) than I have.
Oh, I get it. Leon absolutely nails it when he says smart watches are for centrist dads. They are for MAMIL types who obsess over their step count, or how much REM sleep they got last night. People who will bore you about their gore-tex clobber they bought for their latest hike across the peaks. They have a catchment, and more power to the people who enjoy them. Nothing wrong with being a MAMIL who's into gore-tex. Many of my friends are. But I prefer a life without being buzzed, or tracked.
I was thinking about the Tory guy who was wearing a rolex in the winter fuel allowance video the other day. Datejusts were de rigeur for men in their 30s/40s in the 80s, which is why they are such an old man watch now. There are photos of datejusts with their early 80s price tags still attached - about £600. But a watch like that will travel through time with you, and be something you can pass along to your children - while during the same number of years, between eight and twenty iterations of the Apple SmartWatch will be thrown on a landfill somewhere. They are, to me, distinctly mid.
I still have my grandfather's watch, and while it's worthless, it tells the time well enough. It will be ticking along long after I am dead. There is something romantic about time and timelessness, which watches provide, while smart watches - dead or obsolete in a few years - do not. I'm in love with the romance of watches, which makes me just as odd as a MAMIL obsessed with his step count. But I find no romance in smart watches, which are disposable bits of kit, as opposed to marvels of mechanical engineering or heirlooms to be passed from father to son.
As I say, nothing wrong with smart watches - they're just not for me.
The ridicule that MAMILs (and now smartwatch wearers) receive is, I suspect, a distinctly British phenomenon and comes from a inferiority complex when it comes to exercise and looking after your body.
If the NHS is to survive, we need many more people like Leon to get smartwatches and don the padded shorts, to buy the fancy storm jacket and head into the Peak District. Nothing better than seeing a bunch of overweight boomers desperately trying to make it over the Bealach na Ba.
The ridicule is not the exercise but the obsession with kit. I get just as much exercise on my £700 touring bike and my shorts and t-shirts as my mate on his £10000 bike and £1000+ of kit and accessories gets. And we don't have to stop when my tech goes wrong because I don't have any.
On my last race, I was quite glad to overtake a couple of people on a hill who were pushing their hyper-expensive carbon-fibre bikes up a steep hill, whilst I passed them on my £450 Halfords cheapo. And I'm not a good rider. I think they had the wrong gearing for a short, sharp hill in that well-known mountainous area, Huntingdonshire.
I talked to a lady at a race who said her hubby always gets furious when he's beaten by somebody who has a cheaper bike than his really expensive jobby...
But I'm probably going to eventually get a much more expensive bike. Why? Firstly, I can afford it. I'm a bit tight, and don't like spending money unnecessarily, but do treat myself occasionally. Secondly, I see the races not as a competition against others - I'll never get on the podium, let alone win - but to see how much I can improve. Thirdly, because, much to my surprise, I'm enjoying doing more than leisurely riding.
Harris is getting a huge historic lead in white college graduates in the latest polling:
Clinton achieved +5% margin Biden achieved +9% margin Harris has a poll showing +18% margin
Biggest margin ever recorded.
(Source CNN)
I'm seeing many times more pro-Trump/anti-Harris stuff on Twix than I am anti-Trump/pro-Harris. This is despite me being more on the pro-Harris side.
It'll be interesting to see if this election is a case of those who make the most noise, having least effect. Or if the noise matters.
That's because TwiX prioritizes engagement, and you are more likely to engage with (i.e. respond to) things you disagree with.
It's why I see Marjory Taylor Green stuff all the time.
The algo seems to have changed massively in the last couple of days, though.
Until then my "for you" feed was pretty useful. All of a sudden, it's a mix of 90% shit and right wing trolls with production related stuff. I'd not changed anything.
It's as though Musk is using it as a campaign tool.
I suspect that what Elon thinks is persuasive is likely to have to opposite effect! Being shown Marjorie Taylor Green "Democrats control the hurricanes" doesn't make me more likely to vote Republican, it makes me more likely to head down to the polling booth because people that crazy shouldn't be in power.
Including flights and accommodation I might just have crept over my £400 Geneva budget
If you are of a certain mindset, you might find yourself getting a little obsessed with metrics. "I must beat my step count!!!" is a beginners=level one.
Enjoy Geneva.
These things are amazeybollox
It’s like having a little genie tugging at your arm. “Don’t miss your flight!”
Did you miss many flights without it?
I find people who actually enjoy being buzzed by constant notifications very weird - my phone is permanently on silent - and even weirder when people enjoy constant notifications on the wrist.
Sort of like how it suddenly became acceptable to use your phone at the dinner table in the late 2000s. The idea that you're less present and in the moment and more attached to the tech that's telling you what to do or how to behave.
If I live to be 180, I will still never own a "smart" watch. My watch tells the time. Nothing more, nothing less.
And if that works for you, cool.
Alerts are configurable. Just about everything on such watches (Garmin, Apple or whatever...) is configurable. Mrs J has her watch much more tightly tied down (not linked to any other accounts) than I have.
Oh, I get it. Leon absolutely nails it when he says smart watches are for centrist dads. They are for MAMIL types who obsess over their step count, or how much REM sleep they got last night. People who will bore you about their gore-tex clobber they bought for their latest hike across the peaks. They have a catchment, and more power to the people who enjoy them. Nothing wrong with being a MAMIL who's into gore-tex. Many of my friends are. But I prefer a life without being buzzed, or tracked.
I was thinking about the Tory guy who was wearing a rolex in the winter fuel allowance video the other day. Datejusts were de rigeur for men in their 30s/40s in the 80s, which is why they are such an old man watch now. There are photos of datejusts with their early 80s price tags still attached - about £600. But a watch like that will travel through time with you, and be something you can pass along to your children - while during the same number of years, between eight and twenty iterations of the Apple SmartWatch will be thrown on a landfill somewhere. They are, to me, distinctly mid.
I still have my grandfather's watch, and while it's worthless, it tells the time well enough. It will be ticking along long after I am dead. There is something romantic about time and timelessness, which watches provide, while smart watches - dead or obsolete in a few years - do not. I'm in love with the romance of watches, which makes me just as odd as a MAMIL obsessed with his step count. But I find no romance in smart watches, which are disposable bits of kit, as opposed to marvels of mechanical engineering or heirlooms to be passed from father to son.
As I say, nothing wrong with smart watches - they're just not for me.
That's quite an entertaining rant, except for the fact you can use these watches as just watches to tell the time, with no tracking, stepcounts etc. from memory, on Garmin at least, you need to enable much of this stuff. (Apple may be different).
And before you say that you're paying a lot for 'just a watch'; just look at Rolex et al.
You seem personally insulted, despite the fact I go out of my way to point out it's horses for courses all the way through.
I'm a watch collector (a nerd?! on PB? never!) and would never own a smartwatch. As I say, I'm in love with the romance of the history, the mechanical engineering, and so on. A less kind analysis would say that watches are to men what handbags are to women. Though most of my watches are in the £250-1500 bracket, save for a couple of grail pieces.
I gain no pleasure from having my body functions tracked via my wrist or having notifications appear on it while I'm at dinner. I do like the idea that some of the watches I have I will have worn for sixty or more years before I die, and have watches that my forefathers owned. But as I say, it's horses for courses. If your smartwatch gives you pleasure, wear it.
I do not own a Rolex.
I have a fitbit tracker thing in my right wrist and a fancier watch for my left wrist and a pocket watch from my wife for our marriage. I even have a pocket sundial (not so useful in Ireland). I'd love to collect a few more fancy mechanical watches. I might upgrade to a fancier hiking smartwatch at some point.
I don't see any conflict between the two types of devices.
Absolutely - good compromise, that! If I ever felt the need to track my heart rate etc that's what I would do, too.
I totally see why people who value the functionality of a smartwatch rave about them. But I wouldn't wear one to a black tie do (the last black tie do I went to, I wore a £150 Orient Bambino).
To those who don't see the sentimentality in mechanical watches or the history in them, I ask you - would Christopher Walken have stuffed a Garmin up his ass and kept it there for two years to make sure it was passed down to Bruce Willis?
That's the power of watches. They travel with us, through time.
That's the power of jewelry, surely?
Because that's what a nice Omega is. I wore one because it looked good, and it made me look good.
As I've gotten older and more health conscious, and less concerned about what others think about me - or, to put it another way, as I'm no longer looking to attract a mate - then a Garmin suited me better.
But horses for courses.
As my previous comment, "watches are handbags for men" ...though "watches are jewellery for men" would be just as appropriate. They're things us guys can get sentimentally attached to.
My speedy, I'm attached to. (Though the new FOIS has turned my head and made me wonder if it's time to swap). I can't ever imagine getting attached to a Garmin or iWatch with a three year lifespan in the same way.
It's definitely a slow news day on PB when we're into watches for two days running...
Rather shows the Tories diminished position in the scheme of things, doesn't it.
The smart thing for the Tories to do right now is to skip the "lurch to the right, red meat for the 100,000 or so members but voter repellent to the general public" bit they went through last time and skip straight to the Michael Howard caretaker type leader who will allow someone more voter friendly to emerge.
I'm not sure they've got that, even with Cleverley, though he is the best of a rotten bunch.
Jenrick isn't even Hague territory - he's "imagine if Alan B'Stard was real and you elected him" territory.
Including flights and accommodation I might just have crept over my £400 Geneva budget
If you are of a certain mindset, you might find yourself getting a little obsessed with metrics. "I must beat my step count!!!" is a beginners=level one.
Enjoy Geneva.
These things are amazeybollox
It’s like having a little genie tugging at your arm. “Don’t miss your flight!”
Did you miss many flights without it?
I find people who actually enjoy being buzzed by constant notifications very weird - my phone is permanently on silent - and even weirder when people enjoy constant notifications on the wrist.
Sort of like how it suddenly became acceptable to use your phone at the dinner table in the late 2000s. The idea that you're less present and in the moment and more attached to the tech that's telling you what to do or how to behave.
If I live to be 180, I will still never own a "smart" watch. My watch tells the time. Nothing more, nothing less.
And if that works for you, cool.
Alerts are configurable. Just about everything on such watches (Garmin, Apple or whatever...) is configurable. Mrs J has her watch much more tightly tied down (not linked to any other accounts) than I have.
Oh, I get it. Leon absolutely nails it when he says smart watches are for centrist dads. They are for MAMIL types who obsess over their step count, or how much REM sleep they got last night. People who will bore you about their gore-tex clobber they bought for their latest hike across the peaks. They have a catchment, and more power to the people who enjoy them. Nothing wrong with being a MAMIL who's into gore-tex. Many of my friends are. But I prefer a life without being buzzed, or tracked.
I was thinking about the Tory guy who was wearing a rolex in the winter fuel allowance video the other day. Datejusts were de rigeur for men in their 30s/40s in the 80s, which is why they are such an old man watch now. There are photos of datejusts with their early 80s price tags still attached - about £600. But a watch like that will travel through time with you, and be something you can pass along to your children - while during the same number of years, between eight and twenty iterations of the Apple SmartWatch will be thrown on a landfill somewhere. They are, to me, distinctly mid.
I still have my grandfather's watch, and while it's worthless, it tells the time well enough. It will be ticking along long after I am dead. There is something romantic about time and timelessness, which watches provide, while smart watches - dead or obsolete in a few years - do not. I'm in love with the romance of watches, which makes me just as odd as a MAMIL obsessed with his step count. But I find no romance in smart watches, which are disposable bits of kit, as opposed to marvels of mechanical engineering or heirlooms to be passed from father to son.
As I say, nothing wrong with smart watches - they're just not for me.
That's quite an entertaining rant, except for the fact you can use these watches as just watches to tell the time, with no tracking, stepcounts etc. from memory, on Garmin at least, you need to enable much of this stuff. (Apple may be different).
And before you say that you're paying a lot for 'just a watch'; just look at Rolex et al.
You seem personally insulted, despite the fact I go out of my way to point out it's horses for courses all the way through.
I'm a watch collector (a nerd?! on PB? never!) and would never own a smartwatch. As I say, I'm in love with the romance of the history, the mechanical engineering, and so on. A less kind analysis would say that watches are to men what handbags are to women. Though most of my watches are in the £250-1500 bracket, save for a couple of grail pieces.
I gain no pleasure from having my body functions tracked via my wrist or having notifications appear on it while I'm at dinner. I do like the idea that some of the watches I have I will have worn for sixty or more years before I die, and have watches that my forefathers owned. But as I say, it's horses for courses. If your smartwatch gives you pleasure, wear it.
I do not own a Rolex.
I have a fitbit tracker thing in my right wrist and a fancier watch for my left wrist and a pocket watch from my wife for our marriage. I even have a pocket sundial (not so useful in Ireland). I'd love to collect a few more fancy mechanical watches. I might upgrade to a fancier hiking smartwatch at some point.
I don't see any conflict between the two types of devices.
Absolutely - good compromise, that! If I ever felt the need to track my heart rate etc that's what I would do, too.
I totally see why people who value the functionality of a smartwatch rave about them. But I wouldn't wear one to a black tie do (the last black tie do I went to, I wore a £150 Orient Bambino).
To those who don't see the sentimentality in mechanical watches or the history in them, I ask you - would Christopher Walken have stuffed a Garmin up his ass and kept it there for two years to make sure it was passed down to Bruce Willis?
That's the power of watches. They travel with us, through time.
That's the power of jewelry, surely?
Because that's what a nice Omega is. I wore one because it looked good, and it made me look good.
As I've gotten older and more health conscious, and less concerned about what others think about me - or, to put it another way, as I'm no longer looking to attract a mate - then a Garmin suited me better.
But horses for courses.
As my previous comment, "watches are handbags for men" ...though "watches are jewellery for men" would be just as appropriate. They're things us guys can get sentimentally attached to.
My speedy, I'm attached to. (Though the new FOIS has turned my head and made me wonder if it's time to swap). I can't ever imagine getting attached to a Garmin or iWatch with a three year lifespan in the same way.
It's definitely a slow news day on PB when we're into watches for two days running...
Rather shows the Tories diminished position in the scheme of things, doesn't it.
The smart thing for the Tories to do right now is to skip the "lurch to the right, red meat for the 100,000 or so members but voter repellent to the general public" bit they went through last time and skip straight to the Michael Howard caretaker type leader who will allow someone more voter friendly to emerge.
I'm not sure they've got that, even with Cleverley, though he is the best of a rotten bunch.
Jenrick isn't even Hague territory - he's "imagine if Alan B'Stard was real and you elected him" territory.
Jenrick is centrist playing right. The risk for him is that both centrists and right-wingers might prefer the real deal and vote for Cleverly or Kemi respectively. His underwhelming conference performance means he cannot even tick the good speaker box.
Including flights and accommodation I might just have crept over my £400 Geneva budget
If you are of a certain mindset, you might find yourself getting a little obsessed with metrics. "I must beat my step count!!!" is a beginners=level one.
Enjoy Geneva.
These things are amazeybollox
It’s like having a little genie tugging at your arm. “Don’t miss your flight!”
Did you miss many flights without it?
I find people who actually enjoy being buzzed by constant notifications very weird - my phone is permanently on silent - and even weirder when people enjoy constant notifications on the wrist.
Sort of like how it suddenly became acceptable to use your phone at the dinner table in the late 2000s. The idea that you're less present and in the moment and more attached to the tech that's telling you what to do or how to behave.
If I live to be 180, I will still never own a "smart" watch. My watch tells the time. Nothing more, nothing less.
And if that works for you, cool.
Alerts are configurable. Just about everything on such watches (Garmin, Apple or whatever...) is configurable. Mrs J has her watch much more tightly tied down (not linked to any other accounts) than I have.
Oh, I get it. Leon absolutely nails it when he says smart watches are for centrist dads. They are for MAMIL types who obsess over their step count, or how much REM sleep they got last night. People who will bore you about their gore-tex clobber they bought for their latest hike across the peaks. They have a catchment, and more power to the people who enjoy them. Nothing wrong with being a MAMIL who's into gore-tex. Many of my friends are. But I prefer a life without being buzzed, or tracked.
I was thinking about the Tory guy who was wearing a rolex in the winter fuel allowance video the other day. Datejusts were de rigeur for men in their 30s/40s in the 80s, which is why they are such an old man watch now. There are photos of datejusts with their early 80s price tags still attached - about £600. But a watch like that will travel through time with you, and be something you can pass along to your children - while during the same number of years, between eight and twenty iterations of the Apple SmartWatch will be thrown on a landfill somewhere. They are, to me, distinctly mid.
I still have my grandfather's watch, and while it's worthless, it tells the time well enough. It will be ticking along long after I am dead. There is something romantic about time and timelessness, which watches provide, while smart watches - dead or obsolete in a few years - do not. I'm in love with the romance of watches, which makes me just as odd as a MAMIL obsessed with his step count. But I find no romance in smart watches, which are disposable bits of kit, as opposed to marvels of mechanical engineering or heirlooms to be passed from father to son.
As I say, nothing wrong with smart watches - they're just not for me.
That's quite an entertaining rant, except for the fact you can use these watches as just watches to tell the time, with no tracking, stepcounts etc. from memory, on Garmin at least, you need to enable much of this stuff. (Apple may be different).
And before you say that you're paying a lot for 'just a watch'; just look at Rolex et al.
You seem personally insulted, despite the fact I go out of my way to point out it's horses for courses all the way through.
I'm a watch collector (a nerd?! on PB? never!) and would never own a smartwatch. As I say, I'm in love with the romance of the history, the mechanical engineering, and so on. A less kind analysis would say that watches are to men what handbags are to women. Though most of my watches are in the £250-1500 bracket, save for a couple of grail pieces.
I gain no pleasure from having my body functions tracked via my wrist or having notifications appear on it while I'm at dinner. I do like the idea that some of the watches I have I will have worn for sixty or more years before I die, and have watches that my forefathers owned. But as I say, it's horses for courses. If your smartwatch gives you pleasure, wear it.
I do not own a Rolex.
I have a fitbit tracker thing in my right wrist and a fancier watch for my left wrist and a pocket watch from my wife for our marriage. I even have a pocket sundial (not so useful in Ireland). I'd love to collect a few more fancy mechanical watches. I might upgrade to a fancier hiking smartwatch at some point.
I don't see any conflict between the two types of devices.
Absolutely - good compromise, that! If I ever felt the need to track my heart rate etc that's what I would do, too.
I totally see why people who value the functionality of a smartwatch rave about them. But I wouldn't wear one to a black tie do (the last black tie do I went to, I wore a £150 Orient Bambino).
To those who don't see the sentimentality in mechanical watches or the history in them, I ask you - would Christopher Walken have stuffed a Garmin up his ass and kept it there for two years to make sure it was passed down to Bruce Willis?
That's the power of watches. They travel with us, through time.
That's the power of jewelry, surely?
Because that's what a nice Omega is. I wore one because it looked good, and it made me look good.
As I've gotten older and more health conscious, and less concerned about what others think about me - or, to put it another way, as I'm no longer looking to attract a mate - then a Garmin suited me better.
But horses for courses.
As my previous comment, "watches are handbags for men" ...though "watches are jewellery for men" would be just as appropriate. They're things us guys can get sentimentally attached to.
My speedy, I'm attached to. (Though the new FOIS has turned my head and made me wonder if it's time to swap). I can't ever imagine getting attached to a Garmin or iWatch with a three year lifespan in the same way.
It's definitely a slow news day on PB when we're into watches for two days running...
Rather shows the Tories diminished position in the scheme of things, doesn't it.
The smart thing for the Tories to do right now is to skip the "lurch to the right, red meat for the 100,000 or so members but voter repellent to the general public" bit they went through last time and skip straight to the Michael Howard caretaker type leader who will allow someone more voter friendly to emerge.
I'm not sure they've got that, even with Cleverley, though he is the best of a rotten bunch.
Jenrick isn't even Hague territory - he's "imagine if Alan B'Stard was real and you elected him" territory.
Did B'stard actually believe what he was saying? I can't remember the detail.
The suspicion with Jenkers is that he has reinvented himself as a hard right man despite his past political life. It is all an act.
Including flights and accommodation I might just have crept over my £400 Geneva budget
If you are of a certain mindset, you might find yourself getting a little obsessed with metrics. "I must beat my step count!!!" is a beginners=level one.
Enjoy Geneva.
These things are amazeybollox
It’s like having a little genie tugging at your arm. “Don’t miss your flight!”
Did you miss many flights without it?
I find people who actually enjoy being buzzed by constant notifications very weird - my phone is permanently on silent - and even weirder when people enjoy constant notifications on the wrist.
Sort of like how it suddenly became acceptable to use your phone at the dinner table in the late 2000s. The idea that you're less present and in the moment and more attached to the tech that's telling you what to do or how to behave.
If I live to be 180, I will still never own a "smart" watch. My watch tells the time. Nothing more, nothing less.
And if that works for you, cool.
Alerts are configurable. Just about everything on such watches (Garmin, Apple or whatever...) is configurable. Mrs J has her watch much more tightly tied down (not linked to any other accounts) than I have.
Oh, I get it. Leon absolutely nails it when he says smart watches are for centrist dads. They are for MAMIL types who obsess over their step count, or how much REM sleep they got last night. People who will bore you about their gore-tex clobber they bought for their latest hike across the peaks. They have a catchment, and more power to the people who enjoy them. Nothing wrong with being a MAMIL who's into gore-tex. Many of my friends are. But I prefer a life without being buzzed, or tracked.
I was thinking about the Tory guy who was wearing a rolex in the winter fuel allowance video the other day. Datejusts were de rigeur for men in their 30s/40s in the 80s, which is why they are such an old man watch now. There are photos of datejusts with their early 80s price tags still attached - about £600. But a watch like that will travel through time with you, and be something you can pass along to your children - while during the same number of years, between eight and twenty iterations of the Apple SmartWatch will be thrown on a landfill somewhere. They are, to me, distinctly mid.
I still have my grandfather's watch, and while it's worthless, it tells the time well enough. It will be ticking along long after I am dead. There is something romantic about time and timelessness, which watches provide, while smart watches - dead or obsolete in a few years - do not. I'm in love with the romance of watches, which makes me just as odd as a MAMIL obsessed with his step count. But I find no romance in smart watches, which are disposable bits of kit, as opposed to marvels of mechanical engineering or heirlooms to be passed from father to son.
As I say, nothing wrong with smart watches - they're just not for me.
That's quite an entertaining rant, except for the fact you can use these watches as just watches to tell the time, with no tracking, stepcounts etc. from memory, on Garmin at least, you need to enable much of this stuff. (Apple may be different).
And before you say that you're paying a lot for 'just a watch'; just look at Rolex et al.
You seem personally insulted, despite the fact I go out of my way to point out it's horses for courses all the way through.
I'm a watch collector (a nerd?! on PB? never!) and would never own a smartwatch. As I say, I'm in love with the romance of the history, the mechanical engineering, and so on. A less kind analysis would say that watches are to men what handbags are to women. Though most of my watches are in the £250-1500 bracket, save for a couple of grail pieces.
I gain no pleasure from having my body functions tracked via my wrist or having notifications appear on it while I'm at dinner. I do like the idea that some of the watches I have I will have worn for sixty or more years before I die, and have watches that my forefathers owned. But as I say, it's horses for courses. If your smartwatch gives you pleasure, wear it.
I do not own a Rolex.
I have a fitbit tracker thing in my right wrist and a fancier watch for my left wrist and a pocket watch from my wife for our marriage. I even have a pocket sundial (not so useful in Ireland). I'd love to collect a few more fancy mechanical watches. I might upgrade to a fancier hiking smartwatch at some point.
I don't see any conflict between the two types of devices.
Absolutely - good compromise, that! If I ever felt the need to track my heart rate etc that's what I would do, too.
I totally see why people who value the functionality of a smartwatch rave about them. But I wouldn't wear one to a black tie do (the last black tie do I went to, I wore a £150 Orient Bambino).
To those who don't see the sentimentality in mechanical watches or the history in them, I ask you - would Christopher Walken have stuffed a Garmin up his ass and kept it there for two years to make sure it was passed down to Bruce Willis?
That's the power of watches. They travel with us, through time.
That's the power of jewelry, surely?
Because that's what a nice Omega is. I wore one because it looked good, and it made me look good.
As I've gotten older and more health conscious, and less concerned about what others think about me - or, to put it another way, as I'm no longer looking to attract a mate - then a Garmin suited me better.
But horses for courses.
As my previous comment, "watches are handbags for men" ...though "watches are jewellery for men" would be just as appropriate. They're things us guys can get sentimentally attached to.
My speedy, I'm attached to. (Though the new FOIS has turned my head and made me wonder if it's time to swap). I can't ever imagine getting attached to a Garmin or iWatch with a three year lifespan in the same way.
It's definitely a slow news day on PB when we're into watches for two days running...
Rather shows the Tories diminished position in the scheme of things, doesn't it.
The smart thing for the Tories to do right now is to skip the "lurch to the right, red meat for the 100,000 or so members but voter repellent to the general public" bit they went through last time and skip straight to the Michael Howard caretaker type leader who will allow someone more voter friendly to emerge.
I'm not sure they've got that, even with Cleverley, though he is the best of a rotten bunch.
Jenrick isn't even Hague territory - he's "imagine if Alan B'Stard was real and you elected him" territory.
At least B'stard had a certain charisma.
Jenrick is more Piers Fletcher-Dervish. He wants to be B'Stard, but you need charisma to carry that off, and he doesn't really have it.
Farage, on the other hand... There's even a certain assonance in the names.
We have a massive old flat clock on our wall, maybe 4 feet diameter. I like it very much.
I owned, briefly, an English Electric master clock designed for factory or school use.
It's a proper pendulum based clockwork mechanism, but it is would by an electric motor. It also has contacts on the mechanism that open and close every second to feed slave dials round the building. The circuits are completed using mercury tilt switches. Actual glass vials half full of mercury that move so that the mercury connects the contacts, or not...
Comments
Smartwatches *are* a very MAMIL thing. Gen Z prefers a luxury watch - https://www.ft.com/content/41d0a77f-088a-4ef9-b4d0-ba813c6946bb
I'm a watch collector (a nerd?! on PB? never!) and would never own a smartwatch. As I say, I'm in love with the romance of the history, the mechanical engineering, and so on. A less kind analysis would say that watches are to men what handbags are to women. Though most of my watches are in the £250-1500 bracket, save for a couple of grail pieces.
I gain no pleasure from having my body functions tracked via my wrist or having notifications appear on it while I'm at dinner. I do like the idea that some of the watches I have I will have worn for sixty or more years before I die, and have watches that my forefathers owned. But as I say, it's horses for courses. If your smartwatch gives you pleasure, wear it.
I do not own a Rolex.
GEICO informed some Tesla Cybertruck owners that it would not be renewing insurance for the monstrous electric vehicles, claiming the oft-recalled trucks are not up to their standards.
The sudden change in policy was first detailed by Robert Stevenson, a Tesla Cybertruck owner, who tweeted, “@GEICO said they can no longer insure my Cybertruck.”
https://www.thedailybeast.com/geico-hits-tesla-cybertruck-with-insurance-terminations-amid-recalls
Meanwhile Republicans in rural precincts still have polling stations for relatively small numbers of people (partly because they're more spread out) and so voting on the day doesn't involve a huge queue.
It also means it's much more important for Democrats to vote early, so that they don't lose their vote by having to leave the queue to return to work if they leave it to polling day.
So it would be a disaster if Democrats were not voting early in large numbers, but that they are doing so doesn't tell you anything about the relative enthusiasm of Republicans to go out and vote on the day.
It is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for a Democrat victory.
1) Jimmy Carr's spirit animal
2) The embodiment of more money than sense
3) He is who the likes of Elon Musk, Rupert Murdoch, Logan Roy, and Harvey Weinstein call when they are in trouble.
I feel a call to HR needs to be made.
Yes, you would need to do another driving test in the UK.
After all the biggest villians need the best legal team.
2020 should probably be discounted due to Trump's bizarre campaign to dissuade his own voters from early voting (although this time he is encouraging them – and it doesn't seem to be working, yet).
A comparison of the current PA numbers with the equivalent in Obama-Romney 2012 would be fascinating.
We have to see if it's necessary to insert a witticism there.
I don't see any conflict between the two types of devices.
I totally see why people who value the functionality of a smartwatch rave about them. But I wouldn't wear one to a black tie do (the last black tie do I went to, I wore a £150 Orient Bambino).
To those who don't see the sentimentality in mechanical watches or the history in them, I ask you - would Christopher Walken have stuffed a Garmin up his ass and kept it there for two years to make sure it was passed down to Bruce Willis?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFtHjV4c4uw
That's the power of watches. They travel with us, through time.
"Nothing to do with me Guv!"
LOL. I'm saying exactly the opposite. I don't care what other people use; if a wrist-worn sundial works for you, or a tin-can phone connected to the speaking clock made by your five year-old child.
*for me*, my Garmin works well.
BTW, some people also collect 'old' electronics, in the same way you collect mechanical watches. Some people even collect digital watches, as you probably know. And yes, there's a romance to the history, the mechanical, electronic and software engineering, etc, etc.
As for 'Gen Z': they might change their mind when the middle-aged spread comes along and they realise they need to lose a few kilos.
All very neat considering not that much has actually happened. His speech wasn’t that bad.
Not that it's impossible he makes it, but leadership candidates can sometimes throw a wobbler as if they are entitled to be put to the members.
If you want that, join Labour.
Because that's what a nice Omega is. I wore one because it looked good, and it made me look good.
As I've gotten older and more health conscious, and less concerned about what others think about me - or, to put it another way, as I'm no longer looking to attract a mate - then a Garmin suited me better.
But horses for courses.
The same way a train is a train for most people while some people will wax lyrical about the brilliance of the Deltic.
For me what it comes down to is a smartwatch has a very finite lifespan, it's disposable tech, which makes it hard to get excited about or romanticise (if watches excite you at all). Also as others have pointed out, it's a category error to describe a smartwatch as a watch. It's a bit of tech that you wear in the same space a watch traditionally sits. If you value the notifications and the tracking, great - I don't, so I don't wear them.
Not looking to start an argument at all. Just explaining why us watch nerds don't find smart watches appealing. Nothing wrong with them if you do.
But the entire category of "light trucks" are built to exploit loopholes in USA's already way-behind safety, so are even more dangerous.
Vehicles in that category have zero place on the roads of any civilised country.
The presenting problem is that full size Dodge RAMs are planned to be coming this way in quantity exploiting IVA approval as a loophole, so it needs to be severely tightened up PDQ.
As for your last point above, there's a Dutch woman with YouTube channel who motorcycles to the back of beyond . . . and then beyond that . . . who is having a bike designed for her, that eliminates most of the high-tech electronics in favor of low-tech reliability AND repair . . . especially in boondock/outback situations.
My speedy, I'm attached to. (Though the new FOIS has turned my head and made me wonder if it's time to swap). I can't ever imagine getting attached to a Garmin or iWatch with a three year lifespan in the same way.
It's definitely a slow news day on PB when we're into watches for two days running...
Starmer, Farage, Davey - to name just three
I have an app on my phone that will use my location to tell me local mean solar time. My wife isn't that happy about my plan to have at least three clocks in our house, assuming we eventually buy one. One telling local legal time (daylight savings changes and all), one for UTC (i.e. server time), and one for local mean solar time (I thought I'd find a clock with a 24 hour face for that one).
Some of my earliest memories are of my dad winding it each morning, and it's a tradition I try to maintain to this day. Sadly, I think it needs to go in for some maintenance.
(*) Smiths of Derby
(Daily Mail video clip of interview)
Farage seems to want Cleverly as opponent.
Her issue is that I don’t think she possesses the sharpness of political instinct to know which of these battles to fight, as shown by the news stories that came out over conference. As a result it’s entirely plausible that it becomes a gaffe-a-week.
The fact that the US election seems to be in stasis hasn't helped - nothing seems to be happening and we all remain in total ignorance regarding which way it might fall. The stakes couldn't be higher but the signs couldn't be less clear.
Clearly an item marketed to and acquired by ardent New Deal Democats circa 1936. Ugly as sin, but a genuine historico-politico artifact.
Disc brakes - broadly +ve as long as you don't boil them or lose pressure
E-shifting - why?
Tubeless - total disaster
A bike with disc brakes, double or triple chainset on a Shimano sealed bottom bracket and 8 speed cassette will give you the best braking and a long lived drivetrain..
[Disclaimer: I have a 3x8 on my touring bike, because Yorkshire]
I'm not sure they've got that, even with Cleverley, though he is the best of a rotten bunch.
Jenrick isn't even Hague territory - he's "imagine if Alan B'Stard was real and you elected him" territory.
I’m prepared to have egg on my face but I can see Jenrick falling back again tomorrow and Kemi leapfrogging to second. I didn’t expect the vote result to be anything like it was today, but the prevailing mood feels like in a Cleverly v Jenrick battle it’s now Cleverly’s to lose - and I think that has been noticed by the right.
Last time I was here was not long after Brexit. There was a loooong queue for Brits
This time? Massive queue for the EU. Tiny queue for Brits. Think their gates failed
I talked to a lady at a race who said her hubby always gets furious when he's beaten by somebody who has a cheaper bike than his really expensive jobby...
But I'm probably going to eventually get a much more expensive bike. Why? Firstly, I can afford it. I'm a bit tight, and don't like spending money unnecessarily, but do treat myself occasionally. Secondly, I see the races not as a competition against others - I'll never get on the podium, let alone win - but to see how much I can improve. Thirdly, because, much to my surprise, I'm enjoying doing more than leisurely riding.
BBC2 9pm tonight.
Or iplayer
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0023sgk/bombing-brighton-the-plot-to-kill-thatcher
But it's nonetheless highly irritating.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/08/science/nobel-prize-physics.html
The suspicion with Jenkers is that he has reinvented himself as a hard right man despite his past political life. It is all an act.
Farage, on the other hand... There's even a certain assonance in the names.
It's a proper pendulum based clockwork mechanism, but it is would by an electric motor. It also has contacts on the mechanism that open and close every second to feed slave dials round the building. The circuits are completed using mercury tilt switches. Actual glass vials half full of mercury that move so that the mercury connects the contacts, or not...
A spectacular device