31–40 of 60 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Romans thought in base 10 (X,C,M) a bit strange to refer to them. But I would happily adopt a base 12 number system with base 12 units. Let’s say we use X for 10 and Ǝ for 11, 134 would be 1Ǝ, 24 hour clock a 20 (base 12) hour clock
Interesting backstory about the lost metric influence. The problem I have with Celsius is that it’s so clinical. “Man it was sunny day at 23.1” just doesn’t roll off the tongue like say it’s mid seventies today”.
Nobody every talks about the weather in fractions of a degree.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Romans thought in base 10 (X,C,M) a bit strange to refer to them. But I would happily adopt a base 12 number system with base 12 units. Let’s say we use X for 10 and Ǝ for 11, 134 would be 1Ǝ, 24 hour clock a 20 (base 12) hour clock
As a new father, I have toyed with the idea of raising my child with base 16.
Now that I have a kid, my kid has not learned the word 'sitt'. :-)
Anyway, I wouldn't have made the news as this dad did: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1229808/Linguist-re...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How many ounces are in a pound?
That's not so much an argument for using metric units as it is an argument for fixing naming in the Imperial system. What makes Imperial units harder to remember than metric units is not that they are related by factors of 2^n 3^m instead of factors of 10^n. It is that the names of different units of the same kind are not predictable based on their ratios. If you had a system with the same relationships as Imperial,…
I find the idea interesting, but it isn't about imperial vs metric, but about a base-(2^n) fantasy metric system vs metric. There is an appeal but of course it will never happen, neither will the imperial-unit world migrate to that nor will the metric world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah yes, the global conspiracy to get people to... checks notes ...occasionally use a pocket calculator. Very socialist indeed. A system merely suitable for the human scale will never enable you to reach beyond.
Fractions are good for your brain and inherently more accurate.
Also fractions of metric values should be even better for the brain, if stuff does not cancel out as easily. so if you want to make the argument that not using a calculator is inherently better, its even better to not use a calculator using the metric system.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a new father, I have toyed with the idea of raising my child with base 16.
throughout my life I planned on teaching my kid(s) this one created word for the state of being not-thirsty. So in German, there is 'satt' which means 'not hungry', but for thirst, there is no corresponding word and its one of these urban memes that the corresponding word for not-thirsty would be 'sitt'. Now that I have a kid, my kid has not learned the word 'sitt'. :-) Anyway, I wouldn't have made the news as this d…
Such a long article, repeatedly praising the "simplicity" of the metric system, and it still ignores all possible opposing views. Not a word about the superiority of the duodecimal system when dividing quantities, even though a couple of examples are quoted (12 inches is a foot, 12 pence to the shilling). No effort to explain whyever someone would approach the matter in this way. The author is either extremely biased…
It does not bother me, it turns out that having an inconsistent measuring system is not actually that bad. and metric, it turns out has no more purity in it's base units than any other system. Take the meter, the group setting up the metric system was searching hard for something that was close in size to a yard so they choose 1/10_000_000 the distance from the pole to the equator. nothing wrong with that, but it is…
The base units are still somewhat arbitrary, in that they are based on this planet: the meter is related to the gradian and the circumference of the Earth. Celsius is based on the freezing and boiling point of water in our atmosphere. Mass is based on a specific volume water.
If we were to set up a system now we could base it on fundamental physical constants (e.g planck or atomic units). But then we would have the same problem that the US currently has: endless arguments about how the old system is so much more 'natural' and convenient than the new one. The fact is that the rest of the world has gone metric, and the US will too, eventually.
But SI has 2 things that the Imperial and US Customary systems do not have:
1. It is coherent: the base units and the derived units relate to each other simply without arbitrary conversion factors. With Imperial and US units you can't even convert between length, area, and volume without them.
2. It is based on powers of 10. There is only one unit for each quantity, and a single system of common multipliers.
> Personally I think an si system set up around base twelve would kick ass
If we had 12 fingers and used base 12 in everyday life, then a measurement system based on multiples of 12 would be awesome. Base 12 is much better than base 10. But we don't.
As an American I think our measurement system is the best because of its name. Imperial. The fact that the US has dominated while on a totally different is pretty wild
I find it quite strange that the British don't use imperial units anymore.
So then, either two systems (the worst outcome) or try to switch and your business fails.
Btw its 'simpler' is such a dumb reason - simpler for whom? Why is decimal naturally any better than anything else?