191–200 of 363 posts
I am not anti-metric by any means, but having done carpentry a lot in the past it always strikes me when this comes up that one of the central arguments for (a limited use-case of) the imperial system is usually glossed over: the fact that in many crafts (especially historically), using base-12 makes certain things much easier. It divides into 3rds far more easily, divides into 4ths slightly more easily, and still di…
I love the metric system for no better reasons that it's the one I always used as a french, it just seems as natural for me as my ten fingers, I never really thought about it. Yet, I can understand why some would not change their “English customary measures”, they must feel it the same way, thinking it's as natural as their feet. For instance, our screens size (TV, computer, phones) are expressed in inches for whatev…
Inches to cm and back are actually an easy conversion so thinking in both isn't hard - 2.5cm/in, 30cm/ft. 1.6km/mi and 2.2 lbs/kg are a bit more annoying, and Fahrenheit are a freaking abomination.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
(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...
Though the pint is by far the stupidest unit. Why on earth wasn't it standardised at 500ml? It would have fixed pints, quarts and gallons all in one go!
I know, you can think up immediate objections, but having 568ml to the pint and 4.546 litres to the gallon, is just wrong!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>a rational practical reason for sticking in some cases to Imperial units That to me is the worst of both worlds. The optimal solution is to use one consistent system and the winner is pretty clear. >carpentry Certainly. The future is full of 3D printers though.
I strongly disagree. Using the right tool for the right job is worth far more than enforcing arbitrary universal consistency. In a math course, you'd measure angles in radians so you're dealing with nice small multiples of pi. I think it'd be downright dangerous to use radians in a fighter jet, say, when the precision you need is much better provided by degrees. Imagine if we enforced only one programming paradigm, s…
Except units of measure are not "tools"...they are ways of communicating information. And when each person feels the need to enforce their own version of "right tool for right job" then things like the mars orbiter incident happen.
>Imagine if we enforced only one programming paradigm, since they're all equivalent.
Hardly. A better analogy would be to enforce identical calling parameters for DLLs libraries across all languages. That would benefit all languages and improve interoperability.
People don't want to switch because it's a huge burden to retrain yourself to think in those units. I remember growing up that the US tried to do it—roadsigns in California had both miles and kilometers on them and our speedometers had both readings for a while. But it didn't stick because there's absolutely no point—it doesn't improve anything, it's just churn.
I've got a very intuitive notion of how long a mile is, and Europeans have a very intuitive grasp on how long a kilometer is. It isn't because one system is intuitive and one isn't, it's just what you're used to—you know it because you use it every day.
The article is wrong. Imperial Units are not "better". But, the system you know and use every day is better than the weird foreign system.
As Abe Simpson once said, "The metric system is the tool of the devil! My car gets forty rods to the hogshead, and that's the way I likes it!"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You think that working in hundreds of centimeters is easier?? I guess the system one first learns is the system that feels easiest.
It makes no difference to me. If I described $2.40 as 240 cents, would you suddenly be incapable of dividing it up evenly?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Celsius... 0: Freezing point of water 100: Boiling point of water A lot more precise than the rationale you proposed.
> 100: Boiling point of water Nope! Boiling point of water at 760 Torr . In contrast, Fahrenheit uses a frigorific 1:1:1 mixture of water, ice and ammonium chloride as the second reference point, which does not depend on ambient pressure.
mmm, my proffered drink! I always keep one handy in the kitchen.