Basically Canadian

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by someone123

I'm not sure what you're arguing.

One argument for imperial would be that whatever you are likely to measure in your environment is more likely to land on a whole number using those units, to whatever precision is desired. I doubt that the natural environment really yields more 1 inch or 1 foot measurements than 1 cm, 1 dm, or 1 m measurements.

There are a lot of objects that have been manufactured to imperial specifications and when you work with those you get nice round measurements in imperial units but the whole debate is about doing away with all of that.

Using both measurement systems together leaves us with the worst of both world because of conversion problems. NASA lost a Mars orbiter due to misinterpreted units.

There's an advantage to using a base that has more factors (e.g. 12 has 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6, but 10 only has 1, 2, 5, and 10) but most people doing calculations with imperial units do their calculations in base 10, not base 12. And the imperial units use all different ratios, so you have to remember those too.

Fahrenheit has a very divisible 180 degrees between boiling and freezing (212 and 32) rather than the tidy-looking but factor-lacking 100 degrees that centigrade has.

Metric never uses "dm" -- I don't know why. When it came in I was about in Grade 5 and they had us (and the poor teachers) madly trying to memorize all those Greek and Latin prefixes, but then it turned out that hardly any of them were ever actually used. So metric leaves you with the tiny "cm" and the huge "m" to describe everyday objects. It's such an example of rationalism run amok. It's fine for the beaker set but how many of us end up being scientists?

[vid]

Originally Posted by someone123

Using both measurement systems together leaves us with the worst of both world because of conversion problems. NASA lost a Mars orbiter due to misinterpreted units.

That's because they were using both systems and converting between the two instead of picking one and sticking with it. I personally wouldn't use imperial to launch a Mars rover, I imagine metric would be easier to use in that aspect, but if I'm making soup or building a bird house, I'm probably going to have an easier and more straightforward time with inches and feet than millimeters. It's hard to figure out what's half of 405 mm, but not so to figure out what's half of 16 inches. I conveniently have something that is half of 16 inches attached to my body.













It's the distance between my outstretched finger and thumb.

[vid]

Even with decimeters and meters, you've got a 90cm gap where there's no common measure. Imperial has two—foot (30cm) and yard (90cm).

Imperial sucks if you're working smaller than 1/16th of an inch, you can only break a fraction down so far. 1 micrometre is 3.9370×10−5 in, and let me tell you, a "1 micron filter" sounds a hell of a lot better than a "three point nine three seven zero times ten to the negative fifth inches filter". I think they have something smaller than an inch, but I'd have to Google search to find out.

edit: OMG 3 barleycorns to an inch I shit you not!

[someone123]

Originally Posted by vid

It's hard to figure out what's half of 405 mm, but not so to figure out what's half of 16 inches.

But I could make a completely symmetric pro-metric argument: it's easy to figure out half of 16 cm, but harder to figure out half of 405 mm (well, not really: it's 202.5, but some fractions are hard to calculate).

We are left with the argument that one unit is more "naturally sized" than the other, which I don't find very convincing. I think 1 inch is more human scale than 1 Tm but I think 1 cm and 2.54 cm are about the same.

If you're cooking the easiest and most accurate way to go is to use a scale.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Andy6

Metric never uses "dm" -- I don't know why. When it came in I was about in Grade 5 and they had us (and the poor teachers) madly trying to memorize all those Greek and Latin prefixes, but then it turned out that hardly any of them were ever actually used. So metric leaves you with the tiny "cm" and the huge "m" to describe everyday objects. It's such an example of rationalism run amok. It's fine for the beaker set but how many of us end up being scientists?

I'd argue this is an example of not really switching to metric, but rather cargo culting and substituting metric for imperial one for one.

In some areas we do use the prefixes. People use byte, kilo, mega, giga, tera, and peta will probably come into common use soon (these days a company might worry about PB of data). So it's possible.

[kwoldtimer]

edit

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Andy6

....

Metric never uses "dm" -- I don't know why. When it came in I was about in Grade 5 and they had us (and the poor teachers) madly trying to memorize all those Greek and Latin prefixes, but then it turned out that hardly any of them were ever actually used. So metric leaves you with the tiny "cm" and the huge "m" to describe everyday objects. It's such an example of rationalism run amok. It's fine for the beaker set but how many of us end up being scientists?

"dl" is common, however - it's how you order a glass of wine in at least parts of Europe.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by someone123

There's an advantage to using a base that has more factors (e.g. 12 has 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6, but 10 only has 1, 2, 5, and 10) but most people doing calculations with imperial units do their calculations in base 10, not base 12. And the imperial units use all different ratios, so you have to remember those too.

You're being kinder to the odd system than I'd be - if we're doing all our math in base 10, which is the case, then there's absolutely zero reason to choose anything other than base 10 systems.

Also, "most people"? Who doesn't "do their calculations in base 10"? Ancient Babylonians?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by vid

It's hard to figure out what's half of 405 mm, but not so to figure out what's half of 16 inches.

You must be kidding? It took me less than a millisecond to divide 405 by two (202.5) without even having to think about doing a calculation.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by vid

Salt water freezes at 0 degrees. The human body is 100 degrees. Arbitrary, sure, but not baseless. And while we've got more exact measures today than "the human body is 100 degrees", water doesn't actually boil at 100°C and freeze at 0°C unless it's purified water in 1 atmosphere of pressure. Change the purity or air pressure, and those numbers aren't lined up anymore. A 50/50 mixture of water and alcohol freezes at -40.

Are you trying to say that 1 atm is "unusual circumstances" or something?
Are you saying pure water is... something other than what we'd call, plainly and simply, "water"?

2.5cm is a convenient length.

1 cm is also a convenient length.

Look, this time you're on the losing side of this argument. I know you love to argue, but come on.

[vid]

Originally Posted by lio45

You must be kidding? It took me less than a millisecond to divide 405 by two (202.5) without even having to think about doing a calculation.

Show me where 202.5mm is marked on a ruler. Because it is. Just not in your language.

God forbid we have choice.

Originally Posted by lio45

Are you trying to say that 1 atm is "unusual circumstances" or something?
Are you saying pure water is... something other than what we'd call, plainly and simply, "water"?

There are many kinds of water. Mineral water, salt water, demineralized water, deionized water. They all have different melting and boiling points. If you're working with them in chemistry, they will behave differently from each other in experiments. It's not a significant difference (a degree or so) but it is there. No one turns their stove to "100°C", they put it on "max" and wait a few minutes until it's bubbling. That works the same whether you measure temperature in Celsius, Fahrenheit or Kelvins.

Originally Posted by lio45

1 cm is also a convenient length.

Indeed, many lengths are convenient.

Originally Posted by lio45

Look, this time you're on the losing side of this argument. I know you love to argue, but come on.

You're arguing that everyone should use only metric. I'm arguing that it's ok to have both. I'm not arguing for you to have or use imperial measurements. I don't see why you're protesting so much. You're the one who wants to deprive people of something. Again.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

"dl" is common, however - it's how you order a glass of wine in at least parts of Europe.

This is exactly what came to mind for me too... for whatever reason, certain metric units of measurement are extremely uncommon here outside of labs or technical fields. Yet in Europe they're right there on menus and in supermarkets.

Even things like a 355 mL can of pop... in many other countries it becomes 33 cL. Centilitres are seldom mentioned in a consumer product context. It's just another example of the half-baked implementation of the metric system here. It feels like we aren't using it to its fullest potential.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by vid

God forbid we have choice.

You're arguing that everyone should use only metric. I'm arguing that it's ok to have both. I'm not arguing for you to have or use imperial measurements. I don't see why you're protesting so much. You're the one who wants to deprive people of something. Again.

I'm arguing against mixing up 5.9 feet with 5'9" and crashing probes on Mars. You're arguing for it. I rest my case. Have a good evening.

[milomilo]

Even more annoying, is when imperial breaks down into units too small to be fractional, and they admit defeat and use 1000ths of an inch anyway (confusingly, called mils). So they know deep down that the decimal system is what makes sense, but are too stubborn to let go of the archaic system.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by esquire

This is exactly what came to mind for me too... for whatever reason, certain metric units of measurement are extremely uncommon here outside of labs or technical fields. Yet in Europe they're right there on menus and in supermarkets.

Even things like a 355 mL can of pop... in many other countries it becomes 33 cL. Centilitres are seldom mentioned in a consumer product context. It's just another example of the half-baked implementation of the metric system here. It feels like we aren't using it to its fullest potential.

I think that is part of the problem is that companies rounded down and consumer felt metric was ripping them off.

What really pisses me off is that a lot of pubs are trying to pass off a U.S. pint (473 ml) rather than an Imperial pint (568 ml) as a "pint"

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

"dl" is common, however - it's how you order a glass of wine in at least parts of Europe.

Is that decilitre or decalitre? There is a difference.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I think that is part of the problem is that companies rounded down and consumer felt metric was ripping them off.

Though they still give you a pound of butter, even if it says 454 g (?) on the packaging.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Is that decilitre or decalitre? There is a difference.

Decilitre (dl) vs decalitre (dL, iirc). A tenth of a litre vs 10 litres.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Decilitre (dl) vs decalitre (dL, iirc). A tenth of a litre vs 10 litres.

Decalitre is "dal" or "daL"

This is why most of the prefixes never caught on.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Though they still give you a pound of butter, even if it says 454 g (?) on the packaging.

Unless its a 250g "half pound". It annoys me that food sizes have not been adjusted to metric, rather than just slapping a metric measure on an imperial-sized portion.