was I? Or was I just blabbing via text on an Internet forum where brevity is as misapplied as spelling? I was simply recounting one possible hypothetical that could be derived from the little info you provided - I wouldn’t have put any bets on it, nor thought it needing defense. And just the same, I too was providing OP my contrary opinion to your original statement. You know, conversation...
Which pre-agreement I mentioned in my original post above (RE still plenty of math to do), and referenced again in the one you quoted (RE a “crutch”): I
still have to do plenty of math, with the GMT simply providing a useful “crutch” by (if nothing else) giving me at least two touch-points with reality: e.g., my “local” time pre-set showing me my Alaska destination, from which simple math allows me to get to Denver (+2, my layover), TX (+3, my home) and NY (+4), while my “home” set to Sydney gives me each of (a) instant info RE Sydney time (+20, with possible variable date), (b) AM/PM at Sydney, and (c) a second global point from which simple math can give me Tokyo (-2), Malaysia (-3), etc.
The phone/laptop calendar are also critical of course, but at times in transit can introduce as much confusion as assistance: for example, halfway in flight between Denver and Alaska, in-flight wifi goes out over “international” airspace, and the phone may or may not be showing Denver, West Coast, or AK zone (depending on if or when the phone picks up a signal, is logged in/out of in-flight Wi-Fi, or once landed has yet reconnected to a local tower). Thats all before mentioning I have two cell phones, an iPad, all in various states of auto time updates, plus a laptop calendar itself that doesn’t auto-correct time zones unless I’m logged into my corporate Citrix portal. In all, while in transit, I carry a deep suspicion of both my electronic times and calendars - because a 5% error rate is enough to be anxious about miss-understanding a calendar alarm.
Under all that, my GMT (properly attended to) again gives me a reliable touch-point from which to base still plenty of math, and also confirm electronic times/calendars.
Anyway, I hope you and
@Archer both appreciate I’m here not arguing for any objective reality that is superior to any other, but instead just gabbing on an Internet forum about how (a) “tool” watches all are in some real sense totally obsolete to a degree, yet (b) can to the extent of that delta still be valuable “tools” for some more than others, while (c) being otherwise purely emotional purchases for which there is no good “reason” in modern times (save for a fear of the end of modern times)
