You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
1.16m is about 70 s, 2.82m is about 169 s, for these small numbers writing the elapsed time in seconds would be clearer (for me, at least). Maybe the limit for the transition from seconds to minutes could be 500 s ? I tried a quick internet search, but that did not return any good advice.
Yeah, I agree. 1.16m does not look nice at all. I think the motivation in #146 was for very long times. I'm ok with just skipping minutes completely and go over to hours when time > 3600 s. What do you think about that?
Yeah, I agree. 1.16m does not look nice at all. I think the motivation in #146 was for very long times. I'm ok with just skipping minutes completely and go over to hours when time > 3600 s. What do you think about that?
#146 added minute and hour for elapsed time units. Switching from seconds to minutes at 60 seconds is too early in my opinionated view.
As an example, consider this example
1.16m
is about 70 s,2.82m
is about 169 s, for these small numbers writing the elapsed time in seconds would be clearer (for me, at least). Maybe the limit for the transition from seconds to minutes could be 500 s ? I tried a quick internet search, but that did not return any good advice.Also, symbol
m
for minute is a bit obscure. https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/outside.html defines the symbol of minute asmin
.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: