Topic: Matches that don't even have a number on them.
Anonymous A started this discussion 1 year ago #117,814
What are you even, you wanna light a match, then not know which match is supposed to be next?
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 22 minutes later[^] [v] #1,295,955
Superb response, I guess my opinion on watches is changed now. I guess I'll buy a Rolex now instead, spend all this money on some golden chain labeled Rolex in case I forget, oh and fuck the watch actually having numbers, I don't need labels on my spoon so why would I want numbers on my watch?
Jorge !l6aiEdTxng joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 10 minutes later, 32 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,295,958
Anonymous B replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 36 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,295,960
@previous (Jorge !l6aiEdTxng)
Makes things easier in low readability situations, for one thing. Am I now supposed to buy a Rolex with a light function now? I have to compensate for the fact that the watch didn't bother to just add numbers to begin with?
Makes things easier in low readability situations, for one thing. Am I now supposed to buy a Rolex with a light function now? I have to compensate for the fact that the watch didn't bother to just add numbers to begin with?
boof joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 2 hours later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,295,973
every match is uniquely doped with identifying ratio of substances, so that authorities can trace it if it was used in the commission of a crime
Anonymous B replied with this 1 year ago, 5 hours later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,296,042
@previous (boof)
Why do you even need matches to begin with? A man should already know how to make a fire, just buy matches that don't work but are made out of gold. It's more sleek that way.
Why do you even need matches to begin with? A man should already know how to make a fire, just buy matches that don't work but are made out of gold. It's more sleek that way.
Jorge !l6aiEdTxng replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,296,065
@1,295,960 (B)
If you are struggling to read the watches hands, how are numbers on the watch face going to help?
If you are struggling to read the watches hands, how are numbers on the watch face going to help?
Anonymous B replied with this 1 year ago, 14 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,296,070
@previous (Jorge !l6aiEdTxng)
I like how you keep putting words in my mouth without realizing. It's not just the hands that would be hard to see but also the bars and the distinction between them. It is a reason why some watches add a special night glow to 12, the top part of the dial in case you wondering what part 12 is.
Tldr: two hard to see things are worse than one hard to see thing.
I like how you keep putting words in my mouth without realizing. It's not just the hands that would be hard to see but also the bars and the distinction between them. It is a reason why some watches add a special night glow to 12, the top part of the dial in case you wondering what part 12 is.
Tldr: two hard to see things are worse than one hard to see thing.
(Edited 41 seconds later.)
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 14 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,296,072
@previous (B)
Using a small marker to orient the watch provides functionality, because your watch could be in one of many positions relative to your eyes.
That is useless for a clock tower, and does not require more than one market for a watch.
Using a small marker to orient the watch provides functionality, because your watch could be in one of many positions relative to your eyes.
That is useless for a clock tower, and does not require more than one market for a watch.
Anonymous B replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,296,073
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 11 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,296,074
Anonymous E double-posted this 1 year ago, 28 seconds later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,296,075
Anonymous B replied with this 1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,296,076
@1,296,074 (E)
I feel like that guy is still smarter than someone wasting dough for some pretty bracelet masquerading as a watch
I feel like that guy is still smarter than someone wasting dough for some pretty bracelet masquerading as a watch
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 59 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,296,085
Anonymous B replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,296,087
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Yeah and they do look good on men too, providing it fit's right. Excellent jewelry. Just a terrible watch, Rolex specifically.
Yeah and they do look good on men too, providing it fit's right. Excellent jewelry. Just a terrible watch, Rolex specifically.
boof replied with this 1 year ago, 4 hours later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,296,103
Jorge !l6aiEdTxng replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,296,104
@1,296,070 (B)
You do not need to count the bars to understand where the watch hands are facing. Regardless, if it is too dark to see the hand position, having numbers on the watch face will not improve visibility.
You do not need to count the bars to understand where the watch hands are facing. Regardless, if it is too dark to see the hand position, having numbers on the watch face will not improve visibility.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 7 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,296,108
How dare all you bastards derail my thread...
It's about matches, not watches....
I will credit boof, he did have one post about matches.
It's about matches, not watches....
I will credit boof, he did have one post about matches.
Anonymous B replied with this 1 year ago, 3 hours later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,296,147
@1,296,104 (Jorge !l6aiEdTxng)
We spoke about how the dark makes it necessary to distinctively mark 12, now what if they were all distinct? Like with numbers? Do you see?
We spoke about how the dark makes it necessary to distinctively mark 12, now what if they were all distinct? Like with numbers? Do you see?
Jorge !l6aiEdTxng replied with this 1 year ago, 2 hours later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,296,166
@previous (B)
So now you require glowing numbers on your watch to go with the glowing hands and marks?
So now you require glowing numbers on your watch to go with the glowing hands and marks?
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,296,168
@1,296,087 (B)
I know nothing abput watches, tbh
I've seen a very expensive watch with rotating planets and it looks so cool to me
I know nothing abput watches, tbh
I've seen a very expensive watch with rotating planets and it looks so cool to me
Anonymous B replied with this 1 year ago, 16 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,296,173
@1,296,166 (Jorge !l6aiEdTxng)
No, just numbers. Easier to spot than some dots or bars, I think I don't have to remind you each number is distinct as well and this helps in dark places. Glow would be nice but with numbers I could make it work.
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
I think I've seen the watch you're talking about and it's indeed cool. Devon watches are interesting too
No, just numbers. Easier to spot than some dots or bars, I think I don't have to remind you each number is distinct as well and this helps in dark places. Glow would be nice but with numbers I could make it work.
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
I think I've seen the watch you're talking about and it's indeed cool. Devon watches are interesting too
Jorge !l6aiEdTxng replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,296,180
@previous (B)
I don't understand how you can't see the watch hands, but you can see the watch numbers.
I don't understand how you can't see the watch hands, but you can see the watch numbers.
Anonymous B replied with this 1 year ago, 11 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,296,181
@previous (Jorge !l6aiEdTxng)
I thought you would be confused about the fact that it's the other way around, especially when it comes to watches without numbers. The hands are easy to spot because there's just three of them, you might say they are more distinct compared to 12 numbers or shapes
I thought you would be confused about the fact that it's the other way around, especially when it comes to watches without numbers. The hands are easy to spot because there's just three of them, you might say they are more distinct compared to 12 numbers or shapes
Jorge !l6aiEdTxng replied with this 1 year ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,296,182
@previous (B)
If it's too dark to see the hands, then it doesn't matter if there are numbers or not. And if you can see the hands, you should know what time it is because of where the hands are pointing.
If it's too dark to see the hands, then it doesn't matter if there are numbers or not. And if you can see the hands, you should know what time it is because of where the hands are pointing.
Anonymous B replied with this 1 year ago, 18 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,296,324
@previous (Jorge !l6aiEdTxng)
I feel like I'm talking to a wall here. Ok, I'll tell my eyes that they and millions of other eyes are wrong.
I feel like I'm talking to a wall here. Ok, I'll tell my eyes that they and millions of other eyes are wrong.
(Edited 9 seconds later.)
Jorge !l6aiEdTxng replied with this 1 year ago, 28 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,296,336
@previous (B)
I just do not understand your point. In low light conditions, numbers on the watch face do not assist.
I just do not understand your point. In low light conditions, numbers on the watch face do not assist.
Anonymous B replied with this 1 year ago, 16 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,296,339
@previous (Jorge !l6aiEdTxng)
I've tried to explain it to you, nothing gets through though.
Maybe this can help:
https://maisondutemps.com/en-in/blogs/news/histoire-et-recommandation-montre-chiffres-arabes#:~:text=Arabic%20numerals%20have%20revolutionized%20watch,but%20are%20also%20aesthetically%20pleasing.
I've tried to explain it to you, nothing gets through though.
Maybe this can help:
https://maisondutemps.com/en-in/blogs/news/histoire-et-recommandation-montre-chiffres-arabes#:~:text=Arabic%20numerals%20have%20revolutionized%20watch,but%20are%20also%20aesthetically%20pleasing.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Jorge !l6aiEdTxng replied with this 1 year ago, 16 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,296,344
@previous (B)
You have not explained to me how numbers assist in low light conditions, either you can see the watch (in which case it doesn't matter because you can easily tell the time with nothing but the hands) or you can't see the watch (in which case it doesn't matter what's on the watch).
You have not explained to me how numbers assist in low light conditions, either you can see the watch (in which case it doesn't matter because you can easily tell the time with nothing but the hands) or you can't see the watch (in which case it doesn't matter what's on the watch).
Anonymous B replied with this 1 year ago, 17 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,296,354
@previous (Jorge !l6aiEdTxng)
I have explained it to you. It's funny, I corrected you here @1,296,181 (B)
About how I thought you would be confused that actually I can see the hands easily, when you thought I could not see them. So knowing you'd like to get some explanation for that instead, I explained it. Why are you being a wall?
I have explained it to you. It's funny, I corrected you here @1,296,181 (B)
About how I thought you would be confused that actually I can see the hands easily, when you thought I could not see them. So knowing you'd like to get some explanation for that instead, I explained it. Why are you being a wall?
Jorge !l6aiEdTxng replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,296,378
@previous (B)
I'm not being a wall, but I don't understand how numbers can help in low-light conditions if you can already see the hands anyway.
I'm not being a wall, but I don't understand how numbers can help in low-light conditions if you can already see the hands anyway.
boof replied with this 1 year ago, 4 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,296,395
listen here, those ladies didn't lick those radium-doped brushes for nothing, you hear