It's easier to nitpick than it is to interact with the actual argument.
I agree with you. The headline is misleading, and I think it devalues the article.
Danksy
joined 1 year ago
Shrinkflation still happens, you just get to watch two numbers go up now.
The link references "a/bc" not "a/b*c". The first is ambiguous, the second is not.
Assumed by whom? Clearly not everyone.
How do you plan on that happening?
No one sane is arguing that an expensive mechanical watch is better at telling the time than a cheap quartz watch. If you want accuracy, don't buy a rolex.
Personally, I think a fancy watch is more comparable to buying an art piece. A painting is not "superior" just because it portraits its subject with more accuracy. Similarly, a watch is not "superior" if it tells the time with more accuracy.
I wear a watch because I like the watch. I like a mechanical watch with an open back so I can look at the gears turning inside. I like the attention to detail in the design. I like how the little hour indicators are polished to a mirror finish. For me, it is a piece of jewelry, that also tells the time.
Flying commercial would be disregarding everyone's safety.