I don't think empty for 0 necessarily makes the best sense. You wouldn't easily be able to see where the gaps are at a distance.

Using base 60 and encoding digits doesn't necessarily make the most sense.

For instance hours, it might make sense to use 2x times base 5, probably with no 0 encoded so that there's always something in the hours column.

Or, of course you could do an encoding with a base 4 and a base 6, which is mentally easy to convert back to to a regular 24 hour clock. TBH I'd probably encode that as maybe a square where there's 1-4 sides enclosing a polygon of 0-5 points.

Maybe I'd encode half-minutes with 3 base 5 encodings and some encodings unused, or a base 3, base 4 and a base 5 encoding for minutes.

I would probably also then group them into functional groups that touch each other within the group, so you can easily see the groups, but tell them apart easily.

60 in base 6 is 140, so in theory you'd need three rings for both minutes and seconds. But because that highest digit can only be 0 or 1 I think there would be other ways to represent it, so you'd manage with two rings. One option is to reverse the colors (/fill the ring).

As others already mentioned: the article first sets out to strip away all culture-specific aspects of a clock but then retains the concept of seconds, minutes and hours. This makes some sense, of course, and is implicitly mentioned as "Calibration to a timescale". However, I would have liked a discussion of alternative ways how this could have been achieved and why the 12/24-hour system is used in the end.

Another nitpick:

> 4. A readable mapping. Humans don't read raw oscillations. We read "14:37:09" or "sunset in 42 minutes." Reading time is always a translation layer.

> That fourth point matters more than most people think. A sundial reads apparent solar time, which is local and visibly tied to the Sun. But apparent solar time is not uniform.

This argument - which is used to introduce the next section - makes no sense. A sundial has a readable mapping. (And I would argue that it might be the most non-culturally-defined, useful type of clock for humans).

Next, the author introduces "layers of time" that do not actually seem to be layers but different views (though partially layered).

Then we are given a number of requirements for the implementation - e.g., "no daylight savings time". The clock at the top is adjusted for local daylight savings time, however.

Finally, large parts read as if an LLM has written them (many cases of "Not X, Y", a full screen page explaining that n*2+1 is more than twice as large as n, a discussion of the irrelevant test suite, ...). [^1]

[^1] the few references to other sources have apparently been copied without changing the source markdown to hyperlinks. I think a human author would notice this when checking the rendered article, no?

Another thing related to this subject is the frequency in watch making. I own a manual winding watch that I wear everyday. It is certainly an engineering marvel. These watches are ticking by the hair spring and its frequencies are targeted to 2.5Hz to 4Hz (5 times per second, or 8 times per second). I don't know the rationale behind these numbers. I guess that they must have been a combination of engineering constraints and finding a good balance to keep every second accurate.

This still measures the time of day in seconds since midnight. It still encodes the number of seconds into the common base 60 system of hours, minutes, and seconds. It still encodes the base 60 digits as base 10 numerals. The only differences are the choice of digits - regular polygons instead of an established set of digits like the Arabic digits - and the writing direction - increasing in scale, radially outwards instead of horizontally or vertically - defining the positional value of each digit.

Simply a dot moving around a circle once per day would have abandoned way more cultural assumption than this. Of course at the cost of making it harder to read precisely and looking less fancy.

This combination of base 60 and base 10 can also be understood as a multi-base numeral system. 12:34:56 can be understood as 123456 with non-uniform positional values 1, 10, 60, 600, 3,600, 36,000 from right to left directly yielding the number of seconds since midnight as 1 x 36,000 + 2 x 3,600 + 3 x 600 + 4 x 60 + 5 x 10 + 6 x 1 = 45,296.

The polygon numerals are actually similar to Babylonian cuneiform numerals [1]. They use a positional system just like Hindu-Arabic numerals with the positional value increasing by a factor of the base - 10 for Hindu-Arabic numerals, 60 for Babylonian cuneiform numerals - from right to left but there are not different digits 0 to 9 - or actually 0 to 59 because of base 60 - but they just repeat a symbol for one (I) [2] n times like the Roman numerals do. This IIII II is 42 but in base 60, so 4 x 60^1 + 2 x 60^0 = 242. Ignoring the edges, the polygon numerals express the digit value by repeating a vertex 0 to 9 times and each scale increase of the polygon adds a factor according to the 60 and 10 multi-base representation described above.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_cuneiform_numerals

[2] Because repeating the symbol for one (I) up to 59 times is inconvenient, they have a symbol for ten (<) as a shortcut, just as the Roman numerals have V for IIIII. <II <<<IIII is (1 x 10 + 2 x 1) x 60^1 + (3 x 10 + 4 x 1) x 60^0 = 754.

https://www.botta-design.de/en/products/uno-single-hand-24-h...

For practical purposes just having 3 "arcs" (hours, minutes, seconds) would be much more readable.

The "arc" idea already solves problems of relying on orientation and knowing that it is supposed to go "clockwise" (it is pretty funny, that the only word that we have to describe rotational direction is related to clocks).

Cool idea nevertheless.

A friend of mine once prototyped a clock that would make a full walk along a loop in the RGB color space every 24 hours. That's closer to what I would call a "clock with no numerals".

And then have the data entry with am and pm.

:-)

Over the decades this effect has diluted somewhat, but for me time was always some landmark shapes of the hands of the clock and how far the current arrangement of the hands are from the chosen landmark. No names. No numbers.

This caused lots of problems when someone would ask me for the time. I really had to slow down and deliberately translate, with some conscious effort, what I saw into numbers and words. So for some tens of seconds I would be transfixed, frozen, time-sniped.

When I looked up time for myself I would skip the numbers and words entirely.

But that’s how Arabic numerals are made, it’s the count of the angles in each one.

Still, I like the concept of this watch.