Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

International System of Units overhauled in historic vote

npl.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 589 posts

Re: International System of Units overhauled in historic vote

#311

Post by sonnyblarney »

naikrovek wrote: post #238
blhack wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm one of the weird people that actually really likes imperial units. For instance: 1 foot -- base 12. This is a superior base to 10. It can be easily divided into 4ths, 3rd, and 2nds. Base 10 can only easily be divided into 2nds. 1 inch -- an easily identifiable unit of measure for smallish things. About the width of my thumb. A pretty good unit. For low precision, inches become 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/6, 1/64, etc. Each…

You are definitely (and thankfully) not the norm. Imperial units are awful. They're more ... human, maybe, in that a foot is about one human foot long, and that an inch is about one human thumb width, and how 0F feels "pretty cold" and 100F feels "pretty hot", and to me the charm of imperial units begins and ends right there. Those are literally the only redeemable qualities about imperial units, and they have nothin…

Imperial units are good for describing small items in 'feets' length, and for cooking measures.

I don't think miles have an advantage over kilometers.

In Canada, people have trouble understanding the various measures if '10ml' of this, or '10mg' of that.

They do understand 'a teaspoon' or a 'large spoon'.

I think we need some kind of colloquial measure for food.

Re: International System of Units overhauled in historic vote

#312

Post by Just_Smith »

dyarosla wrote: post #307
fingerlocks wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I challenge you to make a 1/3 cut in meter length wood using a metric ruler. Must be accurate to 1/128 inch (0.2mm), the tolerance used in fine woodworking.

Not only is it trivial to just cut at 33.33 or what have you, your argument breaks down at cut it into 1/5s. Good luck with imperial. And has to be accurate to .02mm. In metric? This is a no brainer

That doesn't really hurt the argument at all - you're just arguing about factors now, and if you're really going to go there, 12 wins due to having more factors. The mathematical correction you'll have to do to measure 1/5th will be displaced by all the correction you don't have to do for other cases.

Re: International System of Units overhauled in historic vote

#313

Post by tzs »

naikrovek wrote: post #238
blhack wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm one of the weird people that actually really likes imperial units. For instance: 1 foot -- base 12. This is a superior base to 10. It can be easily divided into 4ths, 3rd, and 2nds. Base 10 can only easily be divided into 2nds. 1 inch -- an easily identifiable unit of measure for smallish things. About the width of my thumb. A pretty good unit. For low precision, inches become 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/6, 1/64, etc. Each…

You are definitely (and thankfully) not the norm. Imperial units are awful. They're more ... human, maybe, in that a foot is about one human foot long, and that an inch is about one human thumb width, and how 0F feels "pretty cold" and 100F feels "pretty hot", and to me the charm of imperial units begins and ends right there. Those are literally the only redeemable qualities about imperial units, and they have nothin…

For mass, distance, area, and volume metric has an obvious advantage because for all of those we regularly deal with such a range of values that we want subunits, and basing those subunits on powers of 10 fits in much better with our number system and makes computation and conversion easier.

This lets one make a pretty good argument that metric has advantages sufficient to justify having to buy new rulers and scales.

For temperature, what is the justification for switching from F to C? We don't usually subdivide temperature units, so really all C does different from F is change the size of the degree and what physical process the scale is calibrated to.

One can argue that the physical processes chosen for C calibration are more convenient than those for F. C was 0 == water freezing, 100 == water boiling. F was 0 == temperature of a mixture of water, ice, and ammonium chloride, 100 == body temperature of a healthy man.

But that could have been fixed without changing the scale at all. Just redefine F so that 32 == freezing of water, 212 == boiling of water. That would fix the one problem F had without requiring anyone to get a new thermometer.

Re: International System of Units overhauled in historic vote

#314

Post by edoo »

gnopgnip wrote: post #258
edoo wrote: post #236

The US didn't adopt the metric system because it was considered blasphemous since the French used it. I'm not joking. We got screwed by a bunch of demagogues.

The US officially adopted the metric system in 1975 with the Metric Conversion Act.

The act does not require the US to use metric in any capacity. It is optional. If it did kids would not be taught using the imperial system.

Re: International System of Units overhauled in historic vote

#315

Post by Just_Smith »

tylerhou wrote: post #303
Just_Smith wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your absolutism is a bit silly. I don't think the Imperial system is good for anything beyond construction or cooking, but there's a reason it excels those areas. And it's exactly because it's more usable by humans in certain contexts (like construction or cooking). 1/3 of a meter should not be an irrational number - how is that "optimized for humans"? A scalable system that shares the divisibility of the foot would…

Nit: 1/3 of a meter is rational. You're looking for "whole number."

Correct - I've admittedly had a few beers.

Which might be obvious due to me debating the merits of the number 12 on the internet.

Re: International System of Units overhauled in historic vote

#316

Post by jodrellblank »

blhack wrote: post #232
kibwen wrote: post #188

See, the US wasn't being stubborn in not adopting metric, it was just waiting patiently for it to progress from beta to 1.0. :) (Fun fact: all the US customary units have been officially defined in terms of their metric counterparts since 1893: https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/pml/wmd/m... )

I'm one of the weird people that actually really likes imperial units. For instance: 1 foot -- base 12. This is a superior base to 10. It can be easily divided into 4ths, 3rd, and 2nds. Base 10 can only easily be divided into 2nds. 1 inch -- an easily identifiable unit of measure for smallish things. About the width of my thumb. A pretty good unit. For low precision, inches become 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/6, 1/64, etc. Each…

Next you'll be promoting "a better way to count" by Conlang Critic Jan Misali - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qID2B4MK7Y0

Re: International System of Units overhauled in historic vote

#317

Post by nostrademons »

tylerhou wrote: post #303
Just_Smith wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your absolutism is a bit silly. I don't think the Imperial system is good for anything beyond construction or cooking, but there's a reason it excels those areas. And it's exactly because it's more usable by humans in certain contexts (like construction or cooking). 1/3 of a meter should not be an irrational number - how is that "optimized for humans"? A scalable system that shares the divisibility of the foot would…

Nit: 1/3 of a meter is rational. You're looking for "whole number."

But 1/2 isn't a whole number either.

Base-10 absolutism rears its head again. The objection to 1/3 is that it has a non-terminating decimal expansion. This is not a problem if you're using base-anything-with-3-as-a-factor.

Re: International System of Units overhauled in historic vote

#318

Post by yedpodtrzitko »

blhack wrote: post #232
kibwen wrote: post #188

See, the US wasn't being stubborn in not adopting metric, it was just waiting patiently for it to progress from beta to 1.0. :) (Fun fact: all the US customary units have been officially defined in terms of their metric counterparts since 1893: https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/pml/wmd/m... )

I'm one of the weird people that actually really likes imperial units. For instance: 1 foot -- base 12. This is a superior base to 10. It can be easily divided into 4ths, 3rd, and 2nds. Base 10 can only easily be divided into 2nds. 1 inch -- an easily identifiable unit of measure for smallish things. About the width of my thumb. A pretty good unit. For low precision, inches become 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/6, 1/64, etc. Each…

Divisibility by 12 could have benefits when working with small numbers, but on the other hand multiplying by 12 doesnt sound like operation you can do easily from top of your head...

Re: International System of Units overhauled in historic vote

#319

Post by naikrovek »

Just_Smith wrote: post #310
naikrovek wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1/3 can easily be measured in metric... it's just not a whole number. Far out I can invent a system that is unique to everything, and I can create my own abominable conversion ratios all I like. It doesn't make the system superior, it makes my system necessarily inferior. My TV is now 12 Settos in size. My surround system consumes 12 audots of power. My fridge holds 12 cubic fudo of room. There. Now everything is eas…

You're missing the point if you don't see the problem of an infinitely repeating measurement. That doesn't translate to a tangible action. You can't cut 1/3 of a meter, and there's no subunit to roll down to that can express the right number. It's not like Imperial system exists for uneducated people - it exists for trades people. Metric is the "simple" system, because it ties back to 10, a number we're all used to.…

I can cut 1/3 of a meter just as accurately as you can cut 1/3 of a yard.

Not being a whole number does not make it harder to find where it is.

Re: International System of Units overhauled in historic vote

#320

Post by eslaught »

yedpodtrzitko wrote: post #318
blhack wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm one of the weird people that actually really likes imperial units. For instance: 1 foot -- base 12. This is a superior base to 10. It can be easily divided into 4ths, 3rd, and 2nds. Base 10 can only easily be divided into 2nds. 1 inch -- an easily identifiable unit of measure for smallish things. About the width of my thumb. A pretty good unit. For low precision, inches become 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/6, 1/64, etc. Each…

Divisibility by 12 could have benefits when working with small numbers, but on the other hand multiplying by 12 doesnt sound like operation you can do easily from top of your head...

Presumably, you'd also adopt a base 12 number system, so that decimal 12 becomes 10, and decimal 36 becomes 30, etc.
Post reply on HN