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

Death by Inches: The battle over the metric system in America

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 363 posts

Re: Death by Inches: The battle over the metric system in America

#161

Post by bronson »

bronson wrote: post #122
phaemon wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hardly "glossed over". It's brought up every time metric/imperial is discussed and it never makes any sense. Standard lengths for timber are things like 240cm or 360cm. There is no difficulty dividing them into thirds, or quarters, or fifths, or sixths.

You think that working in hundreds of centimeters is easier?? I guess the system one first learns is the system that feels easiest.

Would be nice if one of the many downvoters would explain how working in the hundreds of centimeters is easier...?

Re: Death by Inches: The battle over the metric system in America

#162

Post by TheMiller »

jwecker wrote: post #143
phaemon wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm afraid your argument is circular. You're claiming that the ability to divide evenly is an intrinsic quality of Imperial, and then when I point out that actually it can be done in any measurement system (including metric), you claim that this makes metric like Imperial, because...well, because dividing evenly is a property of Imperial. Unless you're suggesting that timber should only be available by 1 inch, 1 foot…

I guess the real issue is which units get names. Yes, you can do with 12cm exactly what you can do with 12in- but the latter gets its own named unit. The Imperial system has a preference for scaling its units by some slightly more practical number of sub-units- 12, 60, etc. I can imagine someone saying, for example, "why name 1000 centimeters as another unit? Can't I say 'thousands' using the same number of syllables…

Actually, I can remember at least one commonly used alternative name from my time in a German-speaking country. The term "Pfund" (literally, pound) was frequently used to refer to a half-kilogram. I remember it being particularly used in reference to a loaf of bread, by both bakers and customers. (That was a long time ago, don't know if it's still common.)

Re: Death by Inches: The battle over the metric system in America

#163

Post by XorNot »

jwecker wrote: post #69
dalke wrote: post #3

I have some difficulties with the issues described in the piece. "A yard is the distance from your sternum to the tip of your outstretched hand." According to folk belief, it's the distance from the tip of Henry I's nose to the end of his thumb. According to an early definition, "It is ordained that 3 grains of barley dry and round do make an inch, 12 inches make 1 foot, 3 feet make 1 yard." Who here has an idea of t…

As you've illustrated, we've come to value precision over intuition. The reason people using metric don't feel like they're missing something without organic units is because people who use the relics of those organic units don't use them in the fuzzy organic sense either anymore. When someone tells me "1 foot long" I expect exactly 12 standardized inches- not something roughly as big as my foot (even though, in my c…

Also because using the metric system you simply take shorthands. 1 inch? About 2.4 cm as far as anyone cares in a casual sense. A meter is about the length of your shoulder to your hand, or a slightly stretch stride. It's actually easier for me to eyeball a centimeter then an inch because I see and use the centimeter all the time.

The idea that the units themselves matter is absurd - when you're eyeballing it, you're eyeballing it.

Re: Death by Inches: The battle over the metric system in America

#164

Post by XorNot »

alayne wrote: post #87
melling wrote: post #8

Everyone seems to be missing the most obvious reason to convert. http://gizmodo.com/5786004/these-are-the-three-countries-who... We're a global economy. By the ends of the century, India and China will have pushed us down to at least #3.

The U.S. uses the metric system and the customary system. Even many countries that are primarily metric use non-metric units like stones for body weight or feet for airplane elevation. I agree that metric would be a better system, but your implication that we can't compete in the global economy with our mixed unit system seems hyperbolic since we have already been competing just fine.

Haha what? No one using the metric system uses "stone" for body weight. They use kilos.

Even the US doesn't use "stone" - you use pounds, which is your stand-in for the kilogram.

EDIT: Seriously, I cannot think of a single country which uses "stone" for bodyweight. Maybe the British? But doctors don't, definitely not in Australia, and I've never heard anyone from any other places use it either.

Re: Death by Inches: The battle over the metric system in America

#165

Post by riffraff »

alayne wrote: post #87
melling wrote: post #8

Everyone seems to be missing the most obvious reason to convert. http://gizmodo.com/5786004/these-are-the-three-countries-who... We're a global economy. By the ends of the century, India and China will have pushed us down to at least #3.

The U.S. uses the metric system and the customary system. Even many countries that are primarily metric use non-metric units like stones for body weight or feet for airplane elevation. I agree that metric would be a better system, but your implication that we can't compete in the global economy with our mixed unit system seems hyperbolic since we have already been competing just fine.

who uses stones for body weight?

Re: Death by Inches: The battle over the metric system in America

#166

Post by XorNot »

nemo wrote: post #102
harshpotatoes wrote: post #53

Could you imagine Boeing/lockheed/GM/some some oil company or any other manufacturer going up to their stockholders and saying: "This next year, profits will be significantly reduced as we replace every piece of equipment we own, replace every 1/4-20 screw with an M5, and redesign every aircraft/automobile/widget to meet new metric specifications"

Boeing has run into occasional problems by holding to imperial rather than moving to metric and these will only get worse, esp. with their model of using vendors around the globe. In aerospace it's ugly since imperial is so entrenched, but other industries have retooled, there are examples to learn from for efficient transitions. GM already went metric. Lockheed destroyed a half-billon dollar space mission by clingin…

Aerospace is the origin of the insanity which is modern pipe thread specifications. The metric version is still in inches, but whatever 1/8" means, the pipe it goes in no obvious dimension represents that size.

Like, I know there is a system and calculations behind it, but they are in no way friendly to any user.

Re: Death by Inches: The battle over the metric system in America

#167

Post by phaemon »

bronson wrote: post #160
phaemon wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're usually referred to as 2.4m and 3.6m if that makes it easier for you to track. I converted them to cm as I thought that would be simpler for people.

Now THAT makes sense to me. I can picture being on a team using those units to build a house.

(replying to the wish for a name for 2.4m; edited out): Why for the 2.4m, but not the 1.8m or the 3.6m? Surely it makes just as much sense to refer to it as the "two point four" as anything else?

Re: Death by Inches: The battle over the metric system in America

#168

Post by spullara »

Even though I'm an ex-physicist where nearly everything was done in metric, I'm decidedly anti-metric. Most of the metric system has no empathy for the everyday life of humans and is better suited for making scientific equations easier. It is roughly the equivalent of choosing esperanto for consistency.

Re: Death by Inches: The battle over the metric system in America

#169

Post by letney »

MrJagil wrote: post #101
Natsu wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just FYI, "feets" isn't a word. The plural of feet is feet :) Similarly, "softwares" isn't a word either, but I hear it a lot. There's only software. I say this because it's a common mistake among people who speak well, otherwise.

Interestingly, and to my big surprise, "fishes" is quite correct!

"fishes" refers to multiple species of fish, while "fish" is the correct plural form of a school of a single species.

Re: Death by Inches: The battle over the metric system in America

#170

Post by bronson »

phaemon wrote: post #167
bronson wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now THAT makes sense to me. I can picture being on a team using those units to build a house.

(replying to the wish for a name for 2.4m; edited out): Why for the 2.4m, but not the 1.8m or the 3.6m? Surely it makes just as much sense to refer to it as the "two point four" as anything else?

Oops, I'm sorry for the edit. You & I had the same thought: singling out 2.4 was just muddying things.

Calling the unit the "2.4" sounds great. But that doesn't sound very metric to me...

Post reply on HN