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

391–400 of 422 posts

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

#391

Post by relaxing »

ericmay wrote: post #296
relaxing wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, I was speaking about the exterior. But windows are exterior? The idea that massing of interior influences the form of the exterior is part of Wright's philosophy. I don't believe you know what you speak of. > The blending in of the surroundings, and hiding of things like the entrance are the hallmark of post-war architectural trends. Not that I'm claiming Lloyd suffered from the same PTSD that returning America…

> I don't believe you know what you speak of. Ok, then I guess we don't need to discuss anything further :)

Makes sense. By what other means can one remain this ignorant?

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

#392

Post by ahmeneeroe-v2 »

pezezin wrote: post #380
ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>no doubt buoyed by having put astronauts on the Moon NASA did this using customary units >I've been missing it my entire life since Surely you've learned by now that you're missing childhood, not an actual thing about the US? I'm asking this as someone who does think this era was peak Americana, but for totally different reasons than you present, and having not been alive then myself.

> NASA did this using customary units The Apollo Guidance Computer performed all internal calculations in SI units, and only converted to US customary units for display: https://ukma.org.uk/why-metric/myths/metric-internationally/...

yes, I know and surely you understand that the on-board computer was just one part of many in a years-long program that got men onto the moon

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

#393

Post by MarsIronPI »

ericmay wrote: post #86
JKCalhoun wrote: post #77

"Back when I was a Catholic-school kid in northern Wisconsin, my school lessons briefly focused on the metric system. This was in the late 1970s." Man, the progressive school (Comanche Elementary in Overland Park, Kansas!) must have had a huge impact on my life. In addition to open classrooms (I was in Unit 5, not 4th Grade), team teaching, a focus on experimental science, a circular layout to the school with a sunke…

> 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 hope we never change sustems, and I don’t think we will anytime soon. If we do, however, we should not switch to Celsius because the useful scale of Fahrenheit is far superior 0-100 versus 0-32. Celsius isn’t very Metric-y.

Except that Fahrenheit's extra precision doesn't really matter. Unless you can tell the difference between 72°F and 73°F, or 34°F and 33°F.

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

#394

Post by Yossarrian22 »

toolslive wrote: post #214
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.

As an engineer, you should not even use temperature at all. All thermodynamic formulas simplify (a lot) if you use the inverse temperature.

Good old thermodynamic beta

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

#395

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

sarchertech wrote: post #389
SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 0 lines up with freezing point is useless for most purposes Rubbish. Absolute nonsense. It's very useful. But, each system has points where you can say that it is more convenient . You could defend Fahrenheit all day. I could counter with Celsius usefulness. "below zero" being a synonym for "below freezing" is one of those. But you miss the context - you will defend whichever one you grew up with. You look for reas…

>But, each system has points where you can say that it is more convenient . You could defend Fahrenheit all day. I could counter with Celsius usefulness. "below zero" being a synonym for "below freezing" is one of those. Of course it does. That’s my entire point. For the intended purpose of measuring air temperature there are some advantages to Fahrenheit. Celsius is not self evidently superior in that regard. Theref…

> all of the bad things I need to worry about related to freezing water happen much lower than that.

Well, that's you, it's not me. 0F is a completely useless benchmark where I am, it never happens. And someone north of you will want a lower point. This is all parochial.

But you miss the context - you will defend whichever one you grew up with. You look for reasons to defend what you know. It is mere familiarity, nothing more.

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

#396

Post by amanaplanacanal »

ericmay wrote: post #295
amanaplanacanal wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you! I read the article in your edit, and the point about symmetry seems unrelated to the rest of the article, and doesn't mention any science. I'll have to research further. Intuitively it doesn't resonate with me. The environment humans evolved in (the natural world) doesn't have much of anything symmetrical, unless it was built by humans.

I'll see if I can find a better article. I think it's unfair for someone including me to say "go read a book" though the meat of the general theory is there in those books. The research and science being done is measuring levels of stress relative to shapes and designs of buildings through eye-tracking software. So to really over-simplify, buildings that are asymmetrical or perhaps where the door is hard to find, or…

I do appreciate the pointers!

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

#397

Post by kelnos »

nearbuy wrote: post #353
wahern wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The steelman argument for Farenheit as it is, not necessarily the motivations behind it, has been fleshed out here: http://lethalletham.com/posts/fahrenheit.html TL;DR: "The remarkable result here is that 0℉ is nearly exactly the 1st percentile of daily lows, and 100℉ is nearly exactly the 99th percentile of daily highs." NB: The context is the continental US.

It's a pretty neat analysis, but it looks like the "nearly exactly" part must be a coincidence for the particular methodology and data they used (most significantly that it's based on 2018 weather). Fahrenheit was created in northern Europe, using the temperature of a salt water and ice mixture as the zero calibration point. It was later adjusted to define the difference between water's freezing and boiling points to…

It doesn't matter if it's a coincidence or not. The fact that it works out that way still plays to its convenience and "good feel" in the US.

Arguing that it's a coincidence isn't really relevant.

I agree with the poster further up: I'm more or less good with all metric units expect temperature. While I still "feel" all the US customary units better than metric, I can intuitively "see" meters, liters, and kilograms. But Celsius continues to elude me, even after dating and being married to someone for 8+ years who grew up in a metric country.

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

#398

Post by MarkusWandel »

mikhailfranco wrote: post #384
MarkusWandel wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here in Canada, my family ran a fishing camp with a lot of US customers. I was talking with one of them about metric vs. US units and to demonstrate I said how about this: How many gallons in a cubic mile? And he was able to work it out in his head, and pretty quickly too. Whoa. The point I was trying to make that is than in metric (say, liters per cubic kilometer) you just need to get the number of zeroes right, but…

It's not too difficult to know or calculate inches in a mile: 12 * 3 * 1760 = 12 * 5280 = 63,360 A few Americans may know how many cubic inches in a US gallon: 231 But I don't believe anyone (apart from rainman/prodigy circus performers) can do this in their head: 63360^3 / 231 = 1,101,117,147,428.571 Estimate yes; calculate no.

That's probably what it was, an engineering estimate with a couple of significant digits. It's been years.

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

#399

Post by nearbuy »

kelnos wrote: post #397
nearbuy wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a pretty neat analysis, but it looks like the "nearly exactly" part must be a coincidence for the particular methodology and data they used (most significantly that it's based on 2018 weather). Fahrenheit was created in northern Europe, using the temperature of a salt water and ice mixture as the zero calibration point. It was later adjusted to define the difference between water's freezing and boiling points to…

It doesn't matter if it's a coincidence or not. The fact that it works out that way still plays to its convenience and "good feel" in the US. Arguing that it's a coincidence isn't really relevant. I agree with the poster further up: I'm more or less good with all metric units expect temperature. While I still "feel" all the US customary units better than metric, I can intuitively "see" meters, liters, and kilograms.…

I'm not sure you fully read my comment. It only works for 2018. If you did their analysis any other year, you'll get the 1st percentile is -4°F or something similar.

I only called out the "nearly exactly" part of the claim. US weather is approximately in the range of 0-100°F, give or take 20 degrees. But the analysis found 0°F to be nearly exactly the first percentile of daily highs and lows, to within a twentieth of a percentile point.

It's true that US temperature is around 0°F-100°F but usually false that those temperatures are the 1st and 99th percentile.

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

#400

Post by yencabulator »

FeloniousHam wrote: post #177
JKCalhoun wrote: post #77

"Back when I was a Catholic-school kid in northern Wisconsin, my school lessons briefly focused on the metric system. This was in the late 1970s." Man, the progressive school (Comanche Elementary in Overland Park, Kansas!) must have had a huge impact on my life. In addition to open classrooms (I was in Unit 5, not 4th Grade), team teaching, a focus on experimental science, a circular layout to the school with a sunke…

I understand existing-tool-holder opposition to a new measurement system, but sweet mother I hate fraction math.

Even the existing-tool-holder is a weak excuse. My socket wrench set came with two near-identical sequences of wrenches, metric and imperial. I regularly the encounter metric variants in the US. Switching to metric, like the rest of the world, would make things simpler.
Post reply on HN