3 ms·
They 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 h
by bostonpete 10y ago
They 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"?