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

The super-slow conversion of the U.S. to metric (2025)

thefabricator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 422 posts

Re: The super-slow conversion of the U.S. to metric (2025)

#321

Post by Polizeiposaune »

eddyg wrote: post #110
threemux wrote: post #62

I'd part with cups and teaspoons/tablespoons and the like, but you'll pry inches/feet/yards and fahrenheit from my cold, dead hands. They're both more convenient for daily use. I think I'd prefer to keep miles as well but I don't have a good reason for that one. Fahrenheit has more precision without using decimals for the thing 99% of people are using temperature measurements for: air temp. Where I live, we generally…

Fahrenheit forever! 0°C.................100°C Cold Dead 0°F.................100°F Really Cold Really Hot

Don't forget:

  0K..................100K
  Dead          Still Dead

Re: The super-slow conversion of the U.S. to metric (2025)

#322

Post by jrm4 »

tzs wrote: post #262
technothrasher wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the useful scale of Fahrenheit is far superior 0-100 versus 0-32. Well, first of all, I'm not sure why you're defining those scales as the "useful" ones. They don't even equate to each other. But why are you arbitrarily using 100 as the end of your Fahrenheit scale? Just so you can declare it 'Metric-y'? If you read his paper, Fahrenheit's scale is actually 0-96.

The things that make the metric system superior to prior systems are: • Using a uniform set of prefixes to designate multiples and divisions of the base units. Having one unit of say, volume (the liter), and then using prefixes when we need smaller or larger units is way better than having cups, pints, quarts, gallons, pecks, and many more. • Having those prefixes mean powers of 10. That fits in well with our use of…

What precisely is "better" about that?

It's more predictable over -- some things that you don't know how they're going to scale?

Again, the general thrust of "imperial" is better -- base your units on "utility of the most people using them the most for real life things"

Do whatever you want for distances between stars, but no, walking off a room in "feet" can't be beat.

Re: The super-slow conversion of the U.S. to metric (2025)

#323

Post by ahmeneeroe-v2 »

Someone wrote: post #279
nayuki wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For those who don't know: The original definition of a metre is 1/40 000 000th of a full circle of longitude of Earth. That was considered not accurate enough, so it was redefined as the length of a certain metallic bar kept in Paris. Then it was defined in terms of wavelengths of krypton light. Finally, it was redefined in relation to the speed of light. But each time the metre was redefined, the new definition was…

> For those who don't know: The original definition of a metre is 1/40 000 000th of a full circle of longitude of Earth. That’s incorrect. It’s “one ten-millionth of the distance from the equator to the North Pole along a great circle through Paris” ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metre ). Different fraction, and much better defined (different circles of longitude may have different lengths) > That was considered not…

Thank you both for that info. I didn't know any of that (except for the metal bar in Paris).

Re: The super-slow conversion of the U.S. to metric (2025)

#324

Post by SAI_Peregrinus »

bluGill wrote: post #67
c048 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Depends on the field - it happens that 1\1000 inch is a good tolerance for many machining operations, while metric doesn't have a convient round number close enough to that range to be useful. That doesn't slow down mathinists though, they know the fraction of mm tolerance they need to use and it is what is marked on their tools.

Metric-using machinists tend to default to 0.01mm (about 4 tenths) increments, with a default tolerance somewhere around 0.02mm. Default to one gradation on the indicator dial for US, 2 for metric.

Re: The super-slow conversion of the U.S. to metric (2025)

#325

Post by amelius »

NekkoDroid wrote: post #244
amelius wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1 foot is the distance light travels in one nanosecond. And 1/10 of an inch is a very common distance in electronics (PCBs)

> And 1/10 of an inch is a very common distance in electronics (PCBs) I hope you can guess why that is, right? It could have just as well been .25cm instead.

Yeah but just saying we can't easily change it now.

Re: The super-slow conversion of the U.S. to metric (2025)

#326

Post by pandaman »

nayuki wrote: post #173
ericmay wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yeah, we went over the Metric System that whole year. I can still sing the "Metric Family" song from the film on metric units ("Kilo", "Milli", etc.). And to my young an impressionable mind, the U.S. was joining the rest of the world "Free World" in a kind of Star-Trek-like casting aside of the old things that divided us—joining each other with a focus on progress, science, space… I’ve always found this peculiar be…

> I find the imperial system fits in better with that warmth of humanity Right, so you enjoy warmth such as: 1 foot = 12 inches, 1 stone = 14 pounds, 1 pound = 16 ounces. Lots of useless names and numbers to memorize compared to kilo = 1000, milli = 0.001. > in favor of cultural uniqueness and fun over conformity You're writing in impeccable English. As we know, English is an international language and most definitel…

>Lots of useless names and numbers to memorize

Do you have problems with time too? I mean, 1 minute = 60 seconds, 1 hour = 60 minutes, but one day = 24 hours? Wtf??! And one week = 7 days! And one month is 30 unless you mean an actual month which is anywhere from 28 to 31. And the year is 365 days, unless it's a leap year with 366. How do you cope with that?

Re: The super-slow conversion of the U.S. to metric (2025)

#327

Post by gordonhart »

zzzoom wrote: post #255
gordonhart wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Miles didn't click for me until I learned that it's defined by how far you'll travel in 1,000 paces (where a pace is an L+R step). Now I find it very useful to convert steps distance traveled, which is actually quite useful if you walk a lot!

You'd have to be quite tall to average an ~80cm step. 193cm (6'4") according to a quick search.

The original unit was the [slightly smaller] Roman mile which was standardized with the military in mind, i.e. able-bodied men in their prime. Seems like the average for men today is 2.5 feet or so which is more or less still on the money for 2k steps/1k paces to a mile.

Re: The super-slow conversion of the U.S. to metric (2025)

#329

Post by johnea »

psadauskas wrote: post #298
beloch wrote: post #242

To those who cling to customary units because... 1. "They're more intuitive". They're not. You're just familiar with what 70 F feels like. If you're used to metric, 70 F is meaningless, but you intuitively know what 20 C feels like. 2. "Metric leads to lots of awkward numbers." All systems will fortuitously have round numbers in some contexts and awkward numbers in others. Customary units are different in that there…

I read a study many years ago, I haven't been able to find it for awhile. It took people who had grown up using each system, and asked them to estimate things just by guessing. For example, "How long is that wall?" or "How far is it from here to the post office?" or "How heavy is this paperweight?". People who'd grown up using customary were significantly more accurate in their guesses. The study surmised it was beca…

That sounds like total bullshit to me...

Re: The super-slow conversion of the U.S. to metric (2025)

#330

Post by timbit42 »

wongogue wrote: post #17
jabl wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you include the tip, you can do base 16. Let’s go hexadecimal all the way.

No. Base 16 is only divisible by 1, 2, 4, and 8, while Base12 is divisible by 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6. Of course, Base 10 is only divisible by 1, 2, and 5.

Switching from Base 10 to Base 12 would be difficult. Instead we should go back in time and ensure we evolve with 6 fingers on each hand and foot.

Post reply on HN