comment: >
  
  You're acting like no one used wristwatches after smartphones, that's false.
context: This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.
  Remember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not "thoughts had in the shower!"
  (For an explanation of what a "showerthought" is, please read this page.)
  Rule-breaking posts may result in bans. >
  
  Im never giving up my wrist-watches.
  I'll die before i surrender, Tim. >
  
  I own a dozen watches. Got an Apple Watch Series 4 and wore that one exclusively for like 4 years. In the last 3 months I’ve only been wearing it at night. 
  I am back to wearing my ~~nice~~ analog watches baby! 
  Edit: They aren’t even all nice in terms of cost or how fancy they are so I edited the last line. >
  
  Digital watches can be nice too. I'll never give up my G-Shock. >
  
  I have some 15$ aluminum digitals from AliExpress and I consider them nice >
  
  I have a $15 dollar Casio watch I got from Walmart that's older than my cats and I haven't had tk change the batteries or adjust time except for DST >
  
  DST? Is it by any chance the  Casio AE-1200 ? >
  
  Nope. Simpler than that >
  
  The ability to know what time it is in 1 second instead of 3 seconds is overrated. >
  
  laughs in old-fashioned analogue quartz watch I can take sneak peeks at the time during meetings. >
  
  I'm sitting in a meeting right now - just had to look to the corner of my screen to check the time.  
  But I have to admit, those old-fashioned watches do have their own kind of charm. >
  
  Oh shit, are normal watches considered old-fashioned watches?? I feel like I just aged 40 years… I didn’t even know that smart watches were considered watches before this comment. >
  
  Do you not call your smart phone “phone”? >
  
  I do, but I also call my smart watch a “phone”, because the things I do with it are much closer to what I do with a phone than with a watch >
  
  If your smart watch was sitting on a table and you needed it, you’d ask someone “Hey, could you pass me my phone?” instead of “Hey, could you pass me my watch?” ? >
  
  In the case that I really need to make I distinction, I would go back to calling it a “smart watch,” but in reality I would start by calling it “that thing”.
  At no point would I ever just refer to it as a watch, it feels like an entirely different device to me. >
  
  Yeah, but I could say the same thing about modern smart phones and what we had before smart phones.
  You can call people on smart phones, but otherwise they are entirely different devices than what phones used to be.
  You were a smart watch on your wrist and it displays the time, but otherwise is entirely different.
  In both cases, they were do both serve the primary practical purpose of the original device they are named after, plus do a ton of other stuff that is actually more important as far as what you use the device for. >
  
  Yeah, that’s the point… I was still calling them “cell phones” until like 2 years ago. I’m not trying to say that I’m right, I’m trying to say that I’m behind the times. >
  
  No sure if it fits the situation, but reminds me of this >
  
  /r/relevantxkcd >
  
  I'm guessing most peolle wearing wrist watches did not abandon them when cell phones arrived >
  
  Correct. We didn't.
  For the same reason people didn't abandon phones when smart watches came out; they were still useful.
  There's still people wearing wrist watches today >
  
  Color me shocked.  I mean there is only an entire industry selling watches lol.
  I wear them.  They serve as a form of jewelry really but are still very functional.  Much rather look at my watch for the time than have to fish my phone out of my pocket. >
  
  Couple hundred dollars to buy a smart watch every 2-5 years or $1000 to buy a watch that will last 100+ years? Seem like a worse investment to buy a smart watch, especially since some jewelry watches increase in value over time. >
  
  You're not wrong, but the increase in value argument made me laugh. A watch that increases in value costs $50K and you need to buy 10 $5K watches just for the privilege to buy one >
  
  My dad bought a $1600 Omega Seamaster in 1997, now it is worth about $2500-3100 by going off of auctions and listings for similar Seamasters in similar condition. You don't need a super-expensive watch but the difficulty is knowing if it will increase in value over time or not to outpace or retain its original cost. >
  
  If your dad had put that in an index fund it would be worth about $9K.... >
  
  Hey! Don't ruin his dream of becoming a mega-watch investing mogul >
  
  Portable quantum AI assistant (pocket version) confirmed for 2047. >
  
  As if it wouldn’t be an implant in our eyes for AR >
  
  There was never a normal timepiece for your eye (if there was, please send link, asking for a friend) and Google Glass failed, so... >
  
  If we are talking 2047 it’s all speculative but I imagine it being like the eye-phone from Futurama or something >
  
  The brilliant British historian of capitalism EP Thompson wrote an amazing essay about the history of clocks in England, which turns out to be integral to the history of capitalist labor discipline and teaching a nation of farmers to show up at the factory on time, work a specific amount of time that can be calculated exactly as a cost by the owner, and stop drinking by 10pm on Sunday nights so we won't miss work Monday. From the church clock tower to the factory whistle to the wristwatch, it's all about monetizing and commoditizing  the value of time, teaching us to internalize time as a real thing, making our bodies calibrate to clocks, and leaving behind quaint agrarian notions like working until you have enough and then taking it easy. It's in a volume of essays called "Customs in common." You'll never quite trust your timepieces again.
  For all of human history before the modern era, humans relied on the sun to tell them when things needed to be done. Now we get up in the freezing cold at 5am to commute two (unpaid!) hours to a job pushing numbers around on a screen to make a profit for someone else, and act as if things like "9AM sharp" and "eight hours" are naturally occurring phenomena, not human inventions. >
  
  We do? Man I get up in my house at like 8 and commute 15 (unpaid!) seconds downstairs to a job on my computer making a salary for me. If anybody is waking up in the freezing cold at 5 to commute 2 hours to a job on a computer, they need to move closer to their job, get a new job, work remote, and/or turn up the heat. That sounds miserable. >
  
  As someone who has worked 3 remote jobs and left all of them. Employers are rude, uncaring, and cruel. They don't care. One job did freaking inspections of my home every month to make sure the computer was there. Like....they are paranoid you are going to be a human being for 30 seconds while you are on the job instead of an unfeeling robot. >
  
  That's insane, I've never heard of an employer doing that. I'm glad you left that job, I wouldn't let them in my house if they showed up for an inspection like that. Like they couldn't tell you were working by the amount of actual work you did, so they bothered to send someone out to look at your home office? That's ridiculous. >
  
  Had a job that monitored my activity bubble in Skype. If the manager saw it go yellow and I wasn't scheduled for a break I would get a call IMMEDIATELY. 
  They really don't know what to do with remote work in regards to big corporations. >
  
  I work in a big corp in the professional services world. Global org. One of the big 4 in its industry. We are fully remote in my country - 3,000 plus staff here. Nobody ever checks in on us. Once our deadlines are met none of the bosses give a hoot. As it should be. Today I spent 4 hours playing red dead redemption as I have nothing to do this week. I was monitoring my emails all the time and would have jumped if needed. But if I'm not needed why the fuck am I expected to be sitting there. Talent (aka the workers) need to make it a priority when they move jobs that remote has to be either 100% or as close as possible for them or they won't join. Companies will learn sooner than later. >
  
  Heres to hoping. I've been burned too many times by big corps and their WFH programs. My most recent job had us 100% remote. And they have slowly made that number smaller. First it was 2 days a week. Then week on week off. And there are talks of making it 100% in office again. Their reasoning is always "Office culture" or "Making sure everyone meets each other!" "We just want to see your faces!!! Xoxoxo". The constant "Gaslight adjacent" reasoning that the worker is the problem and office workspace is "Amazing! No really! With a gun pointed to your head. " Has made me......jaded I suppose. I don't like being lied too. >
  
  Even better: In the late 90s, we invented something called the "Personal Digital Assistant". But it had severe limitations (not much memory or storage, small low-resolution screen, usually no mobile data connectivity, etc.), and for many people it was inconvenient to have another digital device to carry in addition to their cellphone. So it didn't really catch on, but the name "PDA" (Personal Digital Assistant) entered the lexicon and was associated with these devices.
  Then in the late 2000s, we invented a new device that combined the cellphone and the Personal Digital Assistant. It solved all of the problems of the original PDA: better memory and storage, mobile data connectivity, better screen, and most importantly, it replaced your phone instead of giving you another device to carry around. So of course, these devices caught on like wildfire.
  But because the name "Personal Digital Assistant", or "PDA", had already been associated with the old, slow, inconvenient devices, that name wasn't very exciting. So a new name was invented: the "Smartphone". Which is actually less descriptive of the true capabilities of these devices (the "phone" part is usually the least often used). "Personal Digital Assistant" would be a much better description. But we don't call it that, because we associate that name with old, outdated devices.
  Language is funny sometimes. >
  
  I’m sure amount of this is also due to the fact that smart phone or just phone is faster to say than pda >
  
  I guess it's a little more concise, but it's not that big of a difference. "Computer" has 3 syllables like "pda", but we don't really have any problem using that word in normal conversation.
  But who knows? That could certainly be a factor. >
  
  I feel like most people will say pc or laptop for the same reason though lol