4 ms·
That false precision really bugs me. It's obviously not exactly 100 feet - no-one is ever going to get a measuring tape and check it - so 30m is a much better u
by phaemon 10y ago
That false precision really bugs me. It's obviously not exactly 100 feet - no-one is ever going to get a measuring tape and check it - so 30m is a much better unit conversion!
- woliveirajr 10y agoI usually see it the other way round. When a movie is in US units and gets translated to literal values, like 16 km, 32 km, and so on.... when it's obvious that it doesn't matter.
- bostonpete 10y agoThey should have just said something like "100 feet (about 30m)", since that's what the actual court order is. I get that a science-oriented publication would have a convention of converting to MKS units, but in this case I think it was excessive.
- Bartweiss 10y agoBroadly, I think it's inappropriate to convert when the specification is tied to units like this. For a wild hypothetical, imagine the definition of the foot was increased by 10%. The country would burn, of course, but this restraining order would probably expand with the change. If you're measuring a fact about the world, convert as you will. But if you're "creating" a fact like the court is, that should probably be reported in the original terms.
- manarth 10y agoThe definition of "a foot" was only agreed relatively recently: it wasn't all that long ago that countries differed on their definition. That difference in measuring systems (an Amsterdam foot was 11 inches, a Swedish foot was 12 inches) was attributed as one of the causes of the sinking of the Vasa [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasa_(ship) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasa_(ship)
- Bartweiss 10y agoI knew the standardization was new-ish, but that's an excellent story. Right up there with building a bridge measured "above sea level", such that the two sides didn't match when they met in the middle. http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-27509559 http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-27509559
- phaemon 10y agoYes, that would have been far better. It's not like they'd have been shy about converting units like "cubits", so why not do the same with "feet"?
- manarth 10y ago31m would be a better conversion: the subject of the order is not permitted within 30m of the student, but is permitted within 31m. That said, I would suggest simply using the original units. It would be silly to misrepresent a judge's decision.
- phaemon 10y agoNo, that's my point. They would not be permitted within 31m and they'd be stupid to try. That's the kind of pedantic crap that junior judges get pissed off with every day (depending on your country I guess). Round to 30m and realise that they really mean "not in your face" because you're an intelligent human being.
- manarth 10y agoThey would not be permitted within 31m Do you have a good justification for that claim? If a judge made a ruling that someone couldn't approach closer than 30.5m, and the subject was outside that limit, surely they are complying with the judge's instructions? I would find it hard to imagine a lawyer arguing "I know the judge said 30.5m, but that also includes 31m, and 32m - the judge meant that they can't be in the person's face". You don't find similar arguments for prosecuting someone driving at 1mph below the speed limit - "I know the limit's 70mph, but that's an absolute limit: 69mph is not OK either. Nor 68mph."
- phaemon 10y agoIt very possibly depends on your local laws, but I would check with a lawyer in your country before pushing that limit.