Aren't imperial units considerably easier to calculate on the fly in construction and when squaring? They seem to come more natural for me.
No. They are only more natural to you because you are used to it.
The super-slow conversion of the U.S. to metric (2025)
31–40 of 422 posts
Re: The super-slow conversion of the U.S. to metric (2025)
#32The metric systems's worse flaw was doubling down on base 10 instead of the plainly superior base 12.
Base 12? That's a small number. Now base 13? 13's a big number. The biggest number, perhaps. That's what they're saying at least. Base 13, 13 colonies, now that's America.
Re: The super-slow conversion of the U.S. to metric (2025)
#33[flagged]
Re: The super-slow conversion of the U.S. to metric (2025)
#34The metric systems's worse flaw was doubling down on base 10 instead of the plainly superior base 12.
Unless everyone worked in base 12 numbers too, that'd be a mess. Part of the beauty of metric is how often calculations devolve to shifting the decimal point.
Re: The super-slow conversion of the U.S. to metric (2025)
#35Aren't imperial units considerably easier to calculate on the fly in construction and when squaring? They seem to come more natural for me.
When one of familiar with something, it always feels more natural.
Re: The super-slow conversion of the U.S. to metric (2025)
#36The metric systems's worse flaw was doubling down on base 10 instead of the plainly superior base 12.
This can make sense for currency, but units of weight and distance and so on are infinitely divisible. You can just have a third of a metre if you like. Or 333 mm if the inaccuracy is acceptable. And so on.
And it's not like 1 is some special value. If you start from a base of 120cm you get enough even divisions that you rarely run into the need for fractions
Re: The super-slow conversion of the U.S. to metric (2025)
#37Aren't imperial units considerably easier to calculate on the fly in construction and when squaring? They seem to come more natural for me.
Can you give an example? I can't imagine calculating conversions between inches and feet to be easier than using millimeters/centimeters/meters. Or using mostly millimeters in construction in Europe. You have one unit to deal with that generally tends to be integer value. No need to fractions.
Re: The super-slow conversion of the U.S. to metric (2025)
#38The problem is that Fahrenheit is a bit more convenient for describing the weather. Inches and feet are a bit more convenient for measuring human scale things and for being easily divisible by more numbers. And we’re used to the rest of it.
Unless someone comes along and forces it on you, for the average person, there’s not enough incentive to switch.
Re: The super-slow conversion of the U.S. to metric (2025)
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being able to count using fingers is more valuable than having one more prime factor.
You can actually count to 12 on your fingers using one hand. Use the thumb as a pointer, then for each of your other fingers you have three joints. So 3*4=12.
But all the techniques to multiply numbers with your fingers are more confusing in base 12.
https://www.wikihow.com/Multiply-With-Your-Hands
Those techniques can be useful. If you add toes, multiplying numbers up to 20 (like 16x18) is easy.
Re: The super-slow conversion of the U.S. to metric (2025)
#40[flagged]
I've heared Americans, unironically, state that the metric system is less precise than the imperial system. I have no clue what the origin is of this myth, but at this point I wouldn't be surprised if Trump held this belief too.
> origin is of this myth
poor education system