this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2026
377 points (98.0% liked)

Not The Onion

22159 readers
813 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] WhoIzDisIz@lemmy.today 29 points 2 days ago (3 children)

How decidedly retro of them! Next they'll sell watches you actually have to wind up every day to keep time!

[–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 14 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Actually, there are completely mechanical self-winding watches. They'll never need a battery as long as you wear them occasionally.

[–] Uranium_Green@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

This is one of those things that has no impact on my normal day to day, but is still absolutely mind blowing any time it comes up

[–] IMALlama@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

I went this route a year or so ago. Wait, that was three years ago now? I should have never checked.

I've owned a few smart watches over the years and got tired of things failing. Bands splitting (remember the Microsoft band?), batteries degrading, cases splitting due to swollen batteries, etc.

The only downside is that straight analog watches will drift some over long enough time periods, so you will occasionally need to adjust them by a minute or two.

I just got one as a birthday gift. Works great!

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I would just get one of those cheap digital watches. They don't have any wireless capabilities and the battery lasts forever. (Mine has the original battery and it is around 15 years old)

[–] WhoIzDisIz@lemmy.today 1 points 2 days ago

I was joking & playing up the retro aspect. Were I serious, that's what I'd do as well.

[–] Ariselas@piefed.ca 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I'd settle for a phone that's just a phone

[–] abacabadabacaba@infosec.pub 16 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] comador@lemmy.world 13 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Oh come on, at least post a picture of a good one. 1989 Swatch Phone:

[–] howler@lemmy.zip 6 points 2 days ago

Damn, I missed all the good things, huh?

[–] architect@thelemmy.club 2 points 1 day ago

Those are expensive now.

[–] Ariselas@piefed.ca 2 points 1 day ago

Had one like that, but I think it was solid blue