Bit of a curve ball, but I'm a huge fan of a simple casio.
When you're in a city or a deprived poorer area, it's far safer to look at your watch than take out your phone.
It's also more professional in a work context, especially in customer facing roles. If you look at your phone to check the time, people are more likely to think you're checking your notifications and not fully engaged in what you're doing.
The former, I'm a fan of the DW5600BB. Blacked out, minimalist, works with almost everything (even a suit), indestructible. A choice even watch snobs can respect. 50-100 dollars/euros on amazon.
The F91W comes in a few fun colours. I personally like black and gold. It's retro, so it's invariably seen as cool. It's also dirt cheap. 10-20 dollars/euros.
They've been making them for decades. A classic. Different colours if that's your style.
Non-profit social media isn't exactly healthy either.
I know beehaw is a relative safe haven, but venture to other instances in the fediverse and you'll find cesspits of toxicity that are as bad as it gets.
And given what my experiences with toxic positivity, cancelling and culture wars in minority run communities which should know better, I doubt beehaw doesn't have its fair share of toxicity too. Even if you manage to keep out the worst bigots, people who have been hurt or bullied, quite often end up hurting or bullying others.
Good journalists will never make their own opinion on the matter known outside the comment/opinion/analysis pages.
Not: Man eats a delicious red apple
Not: Man eats a red apple and says it's delicious.
But: Man says he ate a red apple and claims it is delicious.
Or in some cases: Footage appears to show many saying he ate a red apple and claiming it was delicious.
If the journalist didn't see it with their own eyes, they won't state that it's a fact.
It's annoying how intertwined opinion and journalism have become, but it isn't a journalist's job to do anything more than report on what they saw, read or heard.
Unfortunately journalism has been in decline for so long now, that many people don't know the difference between good and poor journalism. So when a good journalist simply reports on what someone said, they wrongly think the journalist is agreeing with them, instead of simply reporting on what they heard the person say.
Good journalism isn't someone shouting about how angry something makes them, even if you agree with them. Good journalism is the equivalent of a court stenographer or someone who subtitles movies for the deaf.