Watches are NOT jewelry!
Well, maybe some super-fancy ones with their own precious-metal-or-gemstone adornments become so, but they are not automatically so by definition, especially cheap-ish ones worn for their utility.
I used to have this argument constantly with a former workplace neighbor who never knew what fucking time it was and always trotted out “I’m not the sort who wears jewelry” whenever the watch thing was brought up, as though anyone who used one was some sort of superficial preening fancy-boy.
It devolved into pointless mutual contradiction; I was right, though.
And you crashed a DNS server, big deal.
…but I went to lengths to not say they were. I said adornments, and added even tattoos to the list, while acknowledging I wear glasses cuz I gotta.
And even if they are… So? Wear a watch, don’t wear a watch.
All I did was make a Kimmie Schmidt joke.
I think perhaps, after rereading, there may be some projecting going on. I am not the friend you describe, I have never, ever made fun of anyone for wearing anything, and I like watches. I just don’t wear them (being left handed makes things… Fun).
Hey, that earned me a merit badge (made of tweed)
I can’t wait!
Well, no, not really projecting, just relating it to a vaguely similar situation that I was just reminded of because of these comments (and the former coworker was never making fun of anyone either, the “fancy boy” stuff was ME making a joke, something I thought was fairly obvious).
However to stress the importance of this more or less meaningless (in this case) distinction between “jewelry” and “adornments” is to very much miss the point, or at least the point I thought I was trying to make, which is that watches are tools with a purpose, and are not just there for ornamental reasons, thus are neither really jewelry OR adornments, unless gratuitously blinged up.
To add tattoos to the list kind of “adornments” kind of reinforces this, rather than lessens it.
I defy anyone to call THIS jewellery!
It has a certain je ne sais quoi, but jewellery? No.
What I find somewhat baffling about all this is the timing:
It’s well known that OLED displays suffer from substantial problems with subpixel degradation(blue tends to die fastest; but all colors are pretty unstable compared to conventional LEDs or LCD panels), so it isn’t a major surprise that somebody trying out the newest-and-fanciest polymer substrate high density OLED display would run into issues.
However, because everyone knows that about OLEDs, you would expect that accelerated aging tests would have been running from the prototype stage, even before the screen was deemed mature enough to pitch to the watch designers. I would have expected that either those tests would have caught the issue well before assembled units actually shipped to retail; or failed entirely to catch it because of inaccurate modeling of real world wear; with a rash of failures 12-18months after release.
Apparently, though, neither happened: somehow the tests looked good enough to go all the way to production; but revealed a problem soon enough and serious enough to do a recall, ruin the holiday shopping window, etc.
Did they just get really, really, unlucky? Did the watch design fail to protect the screen in some way that the tests expected it to be protected(moisture ingress? UV exposure?) Did some internal power struggle upend the people who figured that ‘eh, it’ll last long enough’ and replace them with someone more concerned about brand damage?
I’m not.gonna argue. I never said watches were jewelry. And anyone can wear as much or.as little of anything and they are all right by me.
And again, you realize the original post was just a quote from a tv show, right?
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.