5 ms·

No matter what is suggested, no matter how much better the alternative, there will always be a group of contrary people. Look at flat earthers. Look at anti-vax

No matter what is suggested, no matter how much better the alternative, there will always be a group of contrary people. Look at flat earthers. Look at anti-vaxers.

kbenson 8y ago
There are actual benefits to some imperial units when working in small amounts. They can often be subdivided much more easily into amounts that are harder to handle (or at least require going to another order of magnitude to do accurately). For example, dividing a foot into thirds or fourths is trivial, but for a meter it requires either going two orders of magnitude (25/100ths for a quarter) or simply cannot perfectly represent the amount (1/3). Now, not all imperial units have sane definitions, and they don't even all follow similar rules (8 fluid oz. to a cup, 16 fluid ozz to a pint, you lose thirds but can still easily do fourths). In a lot of ways, base 10 is really substandard to base 12, we just used base 10 because it's physically easy and socially ingrained. Who knows, maybe 100 years from now we'll teach in base 12 and have a new system that's base 12, and all the metric die-hards will been seen as backwards yokels that cling to a clearly substandard system because of history and it's what they know? I mean, I really, really doubt it, but it would be better than the metric system as long as most people could easily think in base 12 (which would require a massive social upheaval).
- jodrellblank 8y ago
  "It cannot perfectly represent the amount" you say, and then perfectly represent the amount. You represent a quarter as the fraction 25/100ths to show how impractical it is, instead of writing 1/4. Would it be so hard to build a ruler with thirds measured on it, so you don't need to try and guess 0.333333 from mm readings? Like http://teaching.monster.com/nfs/teaching/attachment_images/0000/2590/fractioncity_crop380w.gif?1212554245 http://teaching.monster.com/nfs/teaching/attachment_images/0... but made of metal
  - kbenson 8y ago
    > "It cannot perfectly represent the amount" you say, and then perfectly represent the amount. Actually, I said "It cannot perfectly represent the amount (1/3)", so I specifically game an example immediately after the statement of exactly what I was talking about, which you then ignored and used an example for a different item to represent erroneously. What's up with that? > You represent a quarter as the fraction 25/100ths to show how impractical it is, instead of writing 1/4. No, I represent a quarter as 25/100's to show how it would be accurately represented in metric. 1/4 meter is not pure metric, it's applying a non-metric modifuer to a metric amount. The metric representation of 1/4 meters is 25 centimeters, which is 25/100. Let me lay it out side by side: - 1 and 1/2 units Imperial: 1 foot 6 inches or 18 inches Metric: 1 meter 50 centimeters or 15 decimeters or 150 centimeters - 1 and 1/3 units Imperial: 1 foot four inches or 16 inches Metric: 1 meter 33 centimetersa and 3 millimeters and... or 133.33... centimeters - 1 and 1/4 units Imperial: 1 foot 3 inches or 15 inches. Metric: 1 meter 25 centimeters or 125 centimeters That's not to say imperial units are good. They are hard to use for most things because they change across types of things measures, and counting in twelfths when needed is much more painful than in tenths. But, if we were taught in a 12 base system we would be able to use it easily, and base 12 has more cases where it can be used easily than base 10. Everything else would be the same except than our sense of scale would be a little different and we would have an easier tome subdividing things in many cases. Metric isn't an optimal system, it's just the optimal system for right now and the world we currently live in. But for a few historical turns of fate, it might have been very different. > Would it be so hard to build a ruler with thirds measured on it, so you don't need to try and guess 0.333333 from mm readings? Like http://teaching.monster.com/nfs/teaching/attachment_images/0.. http://teaching.monster.com/nfs/teaching/attachment_images/0.... but made of metal Then it's not metric. That's the point. We use these values anyway, yet you have to step outside the metric system to represent them easily. Adding extra marks that don't correspond to the regular intervals is confusing, so it's avoided. That's why most rulers in the united states show metric on one side and imperial on the other.[1] 1: http://cdn.dickblick.com/items/554/27/55427-1012-3ww-l.jpg http://cdn.dickblick.com/items/554/27/55427-1012-3ww-l.jpg
    - aengvs 8y ago
- redial 8y ago
  > but for a meter it requires either going two orders of magnitude (25/100ths for a quarter) or simply cannot perfectly represent the amount (1/3). What? you switch to metric and suddenly fractions are not a thing any more? 1/3 m is just that, one third of a meter, perfectly. How is that so complicated? It can also be 333.3mm. And no one would write it as 333/1000 to make it seem more complicated than it is.
lifeformed 8y ago
That's... not the same thing. One is: system that is mostly always better but can sometimes be handy for certain contexts. The other is: objectively true thing versus objectively false thing.

No matter what is suggested, no matter how much better the alternative, there will always be a group of contrary people. Look at flat earthers. Look at anti-vaxers.

kbenson 8y ago

There are actual benefits to some imperial units when working in small amounts. They can often be subdivided much more easily into amounts that are harder to handle (or at least require going to another order of magnitude to do accurately). For example, dividing a foot into thirds or fourths is trivial, but for a meter it requires either going two orders of magnitude (25/100ths for a quarter) or simply cannot perfectly represent the amount (1/3). Now, not all imperial units have sane definitions, and they don't even all follow similar rules (8 fluid oz. to a cup, 16 fluid ozz to a pint, you lose thirds but can still easily do fourths). In a lot of ways, base 10 is really substandard to base 12, we just used base 10 because it's physically easy and socially ingrained. Who knows, maybe 100 years from now we'll teach in base 12 and have a new system that's base 12, and all the metric die-hards will been seen as backwards yokels that cling to a clearly substandard system because of history and it's what they know? I mean, I really, really doubt it, but it would be better than the metric system as long as most people could easily think in base 12 (which would require a massive social upheaval).

jodrellblank 8y ago
"It cannot perfectly represent the amount" you say, and then perfectly represent the amount. You represent a quarter as the fraction 25/100ths to show how impractical it is, instead of writing 1/4. Would it be so hard to build a ruler with thirds measured on it, so you don't need to try and guess 0.333333 from mm readings? Like http://teaching.monster.com/nfs/teaching/attachment_images/0000/2590/fractioncity_crop380w.gif?1212554245 http://teaching.monster.com/nfs/teaching/attachment_images/0... but made of metal
- kbenson 8y ago
  > "It cannot perfectly represent the amount" you say, and then perfectly represent the amount. Actually, I said "It cannot perfectly represent the amount (1/3)", so I specifically game an example immediately after the statement of exactly what I was talking about, which you then ignored and used an example for a different item to represent erroneously. What's up with that? > You represent a quarter as the fraction 25/100ths to show how impractical it is, instead of writing 1/4. No, I represent a quarter as 25/100's to show how it would be accurately represented in metric. 1/4 meter is not pure metric, it's applying a non-metric modifuer to a metric amount. The metric representation of 1/4 meters is 25 centimeters, which is 25/100. Let me lay it out side by side: - 1 and 1/2 units Imperial: 1 foot 6 inches or 18 inches Metric: 1 meter 50 centimeters or 15 decimeters or 150 centimeters - 1 and 1/3 units Imperial: 1 foot four inches or 16 inches Metric: 1 meter 33 centimetersa and 3 millimeters and... or 133.33... centimeters - 1 and 1/4 units Imperial: 1 foot 3 inches or 15 inches. Metric: 1 meter 25 centimeters or 125 centimeters That's not to say imperial units are good. They are hard to use for most things because they change across types of things measures, and counting in twelfths when needed is much more painful than in tenths. But, if we were taught in a 12 base system we would be able to use it easily, and base 12 has more cases where it can be used easily than base 10. Everything else would be the same except than our sense of scale would be a little different and we would have an easier tome subdividing things in many cases. Metric isn't an optimal system, it's just the optimal system for right now and the world we currently live in. But for a few historical turns of fate, it might have been very different. > Would it be so hard to build a ruler with thirds measured on it, so you don't need to try and guess 0.333333 from mm readings? Like http://teaching.monster.com/nfs/teaching/attachment_images/0.. http://teaching.monster.com/nfs/teaching/attachment_images/0.... but made of metal Then it's not metric. That's the point. We use these values anyway, yet you have to step outside the metric system to represent them easily. Adding extra marks that don't correspond to the regular intervals is confusing, so it's avoided. That's why most rulers in the united states show metric on one side and imperial on the other.[1] 1: http://cdn.dickblick.com/items/554/27/55427-1012-3ww-l.jpg http://cdn.dickblick.com/items/554/27/55427-1012-3ww-l.jpg
  - aengvs 8y ago
redial 8y ago
> but for a meter it requires either going two orders of magnitude (25/100ths for a quarter) or simply cannot perfectly represent the amount (1/3). What? you switch to metric and suddenly fractions are not a thing any more? 1/3 m is just that, one third of a meter, perfectly. How is that so complicated? It can also be 333.3mm. And no one would write it as 333/1000 to make it seem more complicated than it is.

lifeformed 8y ago

That's... not the same thing. One is: system that is mostly always better but can sometimes be handy for certain contexts. The other is: objectively true thing versus objectively false thing.