Casio’s classic F91W often lasts more than 10 years, I guess they just didn’t want to advertise it til they could stand behind it.
I really like my new F91W modded by CW&T, embedded in a brick of resin so there’s no buttons, no way to change the time, no changing the battery, just a watch that will tick for 10ish years and then die.
What, if anything, in your life needs to be done with-in ±5 minutes? If the analog minute hand "should" be on 2, but it's closer to 1 or 3, how many things will fall apart in your life?
Frankly it's a total non-issue because you now have your train ticket on a mobile app on a mobile device with synchronized internet time anyway. Most people are wearing mechanical watches today as jewellery and a physical piece of craftsmanship that's nice to keep time that's directionally correct, but if it's out by 30seconds it's no big deal and you just reset it against the time on your phone and get on with your day.
We all need to decide where to spend our efforts. If you decide that maintaining a fork isn't worth your time, then that's a revelation of your own preferences.
> It's more complex, especially when considering Ukraine and Israel's appetite for weapons and ordnance. Every missile or drone canceled or delayed or rerouted to support Israel is one less Ukraine has to defend itself.
Except how much is the US/Trump actually helping Ukraine nowadays? How much are they providing? And how dependent on the US does Ukraine actually want to be given Trump's fandom of Putin?
> Why is that inherently bad? Should I be able to buy fire insurance on pre-existing embers?
What if someone gets Type 1 diabetes as a child so they can no longer get insurance because of that "pre-existing" condition: if they get cancer for unrelated reasons they should just be saddled with medical debt? Or because of your Type 1 you can't get coverage, and you get t-boned in your car by a drunk driver.
Certainly it sounds 'unfair' that someone who smokes (a personal choice) gets similar cancer coverage for someone who does not smoke. But it also means that if your ((great-)grand-)mother had cancer, and you get it through no fault/choice of your own (i.e. genetics), you can also get coverage. (This latter effects a cousin of mine: her aunt (mom's sister) died of cancer at 37, her mom at 63; so now she's wonder when here number will come up. We're in Canada, so have universal care, but it's still something in her DNA.)
There are many circumstances in which you suffer through no fault of your own, and universal health coverage is present in many societies because it was decided to protect those people—even if it allows some 'free-riding' by others making poor choices.
People make all sorts of crazy decisions to prevent the "wrong" people from getting what they "don't deserve":
Pre-existing conditions also continue to frame healthcare as 'insurance' against a bad thing happening to you, when it should just be a regular service like any other.
You don't need 'insurance' in order to get your vehicle serviced, but that is what the US does with healthcare.
The most it will ever cost me to go from “not having a working car” to “having a working car” is the cost of used car that will reliably get me from point A to point B.
> Arguably better for everyone. Too much focus on short-term profits can harm long-term growth.
If you think quarterly reporting 'season' is crazy now, wait until it becomes semi-annual and the pressure is really on to hit analyst numbers. It'll be like New Year's Countdown on Results Release Day.
Or "crimes". (Stay away from windows.)
reply