5 ms·

For the very same reason I wonder whether there might be a difference in taste between a metric recipe and an imperial one.

JorgeGT 8y ago
Fun story: when the Soviets tried to reverse-engineer captured B-29s bombers (into Tupolev Tu-4s) they had a lot of trouble because their production of sheet aluminium, rivets, etc. was done in metric sizes, whereas the B-29 used imperial-sized components, and thus extensive re-engineering was required to compensate the slight differences in thickness (and thus in weight and balance) of all components.
- Gravityloss 8y ago
  And Airbus only uses imperial bolt sizes.
- r00fus 8y ago
  I wonder if this justifies the US adherence to the imperial standard - meaning it acts as a basic barrier to entry for other countries who use the "world" standard.
  - pandemic_region 8y ago
    sort of like the use of analog comms on the Galactica right?
    - TeMPOraL 8y ago
      Not quite the same thing, but since you mention Galactica and her non-networked systems, I believe watching this show should be required of anyone even tangentially considering work in an IoT project.
    - Bellyache5 8y ago
      Try making a paper airplane with Galactica’s octagonal sheets of paper!
  - lmm 8y ago
    Compatibility usually gains you more than you lose. If you can't make US planes with parts from the rest of the world then that does mean other countries can't make US planes, but that also means that the US manufacturers can't import parts from elsewhere.
    - dotancohen 8y ago
      The F-35 has components made all over the world, but was designed in the US. Is that plane metric?
      - lmm 8y ago
        I would assume/hope so? Lockheed of all companies should be on top of that after the mars probe incident.
kwhitefoot 8y ago
> imperial standard The US does not use Imperial. It uses US Customary. This differs from Imperial in many ways especially for volume measure. And of course Imperial is not a standard.
- saalweachter 8y ago
  For one thing a pint is still (roughly) a pound.

JorgeGT 8y ago

Fun story: when the Soviets tried to reverse-engineer captured B-29s bombers (into Tupolev Tu-4s) they had a lot of trouble because their production of sheet aluminium, rivets, etc. was done in metric sizes, whereas the B-29 used imperial-sized components, and thus extensive re-engineering was required to compensate the slight differences in thickness (and thus in weight and balance) of all components.

Gravityloss 8y ago
And Airbus only uses imperial bolt sizes.
r00fus 8y ago
I wonder if this justifies the US adherence to the imperial standard - meaning it acts as a basic barrier to entry for other countries who use the "world" standard.
- pandemic_region 8y ago
  sort of like the use of analog comms on the Galactica right?
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    Not quite the same thing, but since you mention Galactica and her non-networked systems, I believe watching this show should be required of anyone even tangentially considering work in an IoT project.
  - Bellyache5 8y ago
    Try making a paper airplane with Galactica’s octagonal sheets of paper!
- lmm 8y ago
  Compatibility usually gains you more than you lose. If you can't make US planes with parts from the rest of the world then that does mean other countries can't make US planes, but that also means that the US manufacturers can't import parts from elsewhere.
  - dotancohen 8y ago
    The F-35 has components made all over the world, but was designed in the US. Is that plane metric?
    - lmm 8y ago
      I would assume/hope so? Lockheed of all companies should be on top of that after the mars probe incident.

kwhitefoot 8y ago

> imperial standard The US does not use Imperial. It uses US Customary. This differs from Imperial in many ways especially for volume measure. And of course Imperial is not a standard.

saalweachter 8y ago
For one thing a pint is still (roughly) a pound.