When digital clocks and watches came out, I figured it would mean the demise of analog clocks and watches, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Most people seem to prefer the old-fashioned dial-face with hands.

I have used a digital watch for years, and I love it, mainly for the additional functions: date, alarm, and timer, which I use frequently. It has a black plastic case and cost less than $25. The strap is not the one that came with it originally; mine is nylon fabric with a Velcro closure; the perfect timepiece in my estimation. I can't imagine wanting anything better. Oh, it might be nice to have one that would measure my heart rate, or blood pressure, or give me my exact location by GPS, or tell me how far I have walked today, but I can live without those functions.

Yet, pick up any copy of, say, The New Yorker magazine, or the Wall Street Journal, and you will see dozens of ads for expensive watches, in the hundreds or thousands of dollars. Many of them don't have as many functions as mine does, and I doubt that they can do anything more accurately or conveniently than mine does. So why do they exist? I suppose because people who buy them want fancy jewelry more than they want functionality.

And, curiously, all of those expensive watches are analog, not digital. Why? Hasn't anyone figured out a way to make a digital watch look like jewelry? Not that I would want one…

* * *
I think dirigibles were a technological dead-end.