Has a "metric" version of time ever been proposed? Seems odd to me that we're "ok" with divisions of 12 for time but not length. I guess for science seconds are basically the only measure of time that usually matters?
Metric had time from the start. However it was work 4 days, 1 day weekend. However the loss of personal time was very unpopular so it never caught on.
Has a "metric" version of time ever been proposed? Seems odd to me that we're "ok" with divisions of 12 for time but not length. I guess for science seconds are basically the only measure of time that usually matters?
Seconds are the metric unit of time if I understand it correctly. It doesn’t make any sense to say “kiloseconds” or something like that because days are the time that the sun is up (ish), months are roughly based on moon cycles, and years are approximately the time it takes us to go around the sun.
It’s also historical and pretty hard to change the basic units of time.
Has a "metric" version of time ever been proposed? Seems odd to me that we're "ok" with divisions of 12 for time but not length. I guess for science seconds are basically the only measure of time that usually matters?
Years (or more specifically millions of years) gets used sometimes when talking about astrophysics, evolution or continental drift. (I am not a researcher and definitely not in any of those field though, so this may just be in material aimed at non-scientists). But I guess there's enough orders of magnitude of different that they rarely cross over so no one cares about the odd ratio, similar to J vs eV.
This is probably the dumbest thing I'll type on HN. In university I just gave up trying to understand why we even needed the Avogadro constant / mole as a fundamental constant. It still confuses me. Why have a difference between molar mass and mass? Why couldn't it just be "1" and everything else change around it?
I thought it was just a ratio. Mass per mole. I admit I have never used this in my day to day life and college was 20 years ago. So maybe I am clueless.
Nah, I think that's just it. It's easier to write down certain calculations in mole in a chemical context, because you're concerned with atoms reacting with each other. You don't have 12 grams of carbon and 4 grams of hydrogen, but 1 mole of carbon and 4 mole of hydrogen.
This is probably the dumbest thing I'll type on HN. In university I just gave up trying to understand why we even needed the Avogadro constant / mole as a fundamental constant. It still confuses me. Why have a difference between molar mass and mass? Why couldn't it just be "1" and everything else change around it?
No I agree, it seems stupid. What we did is take a block of metal and call it a kilogram, figure out how many atoms are in 1/1000 of it (a gram) and call that a mole. What we should do is redefine the gram to be whatever 1e10 atoms of Hydrogen weighs, or something similar. When I read the headline I thought thats what they did, and I admit first reaction was "oh god I'm going to be dealing with conversions and associated errors for the rest of my life".
They really should cut the middle man. What surprised me reading that wiki page is that apparently the metric system was opposed in the US based on religious reasons . That is mind-boggling.
Is there any compelling reason why the US should switch to the metric system for daily use? Metric is already used universally in science and engineering, which seem to be the main fields in which consistency across countries matters. I completely agree that in physics, chemistry, engineering, medicine, etc., it is important to use standard units. But what harm is it doing in practice if in everyday life, Americans s…
> A good comparison is degrees Celsius, which are just as arbitrary/unscientific (the standard metric unit is the Kelvin).
Celsius is literally the same scale as Kelvin, just shifted so that 0c = water freezing.
Has a "metric" version of time ever been proposed? Seems odd to me that we're "ok" with divisions of 12 for time but not length. I guess for science seconds are basically the only measure of time that usually matters?
Seconds are the metric unit of time if I understand it correctly. It doesn’t make any sense to say “kiloseconds” or something like that because days are the time that the sun is up (ish), months are roughly based on moon cycles, and years are approximately the time it takes us to go around the sun. It’s also historical and pretty hard to change the basic units of time.
FWIW, while scientists don't usually use kiloseconds, it's pretty common to see 1.437e4 seconds, rather than 3h 43min 20sec, used as units in time series etc. Similarly one uses milliseconds, femtoseconds, and soforth.
Has a "metric" version of time ever been proposed? Seems odd to me that we're "ok" with divisions of 12 for time but not length. I guess for science seconds are basically the only measure of time that usually matters?
Metric had time from the start. However it was work 4 days, 1 day weekend. However the loss of personal time was very unpopular so it never caught on. I'm not sure why a metric hour didn't catch on.
At least there will be no disagreement about the shipping weight on the auction listing.
The real question is how many boxes will the fulfilment center place the kg in. If Amazon is anything to go by my money is on 3
OT, but this!
I recently ordered a picture frame from Amazon. It came in its packaging box, which was placed in a box by the manufacturer. That box was put in another box by Amazon and shrink wrapped to a large piece of cardboard, which was then put inside yet another box.
On the surface, it seems crazy, but Amazon did manage to get it to me undamaged.