3 ms·
Even speaking as a brit, your mixture of metric and imperial and metric fascinates me. I personally would've written 150lb, 6'6 tall, 1ft deep, 37 to 0 degrees
by ChrisRR 7y ago
Even speaking as a brit, your mixture of metric and imperial and metric fascinates me.
I personally would've written 150lb, 6'6 tall, 1ft deep, 37 to 0 degrees
- OJFord 7y ago150lb? That always strikes me as distinctly American, as opposed to 10st 10lb.
- saalweachter 7y agoI'm so glad America got away before y'all went stone-crazy. Redefining the hundredweight, seriously?
- OJFord 7y agoHey, for a '1,000 pennyer' I'll advocate for your pound-as-largest-unit madness.
- saalweachter 7y agoYou had options! The London stone for wool was 12.5 lbs, which would give you the same 8 stone to the hundredweight without redefining a hundredweight as 112 lbs. Or if you wanted to go the other way -- there were plenty of other definitions of the stone in use at the time, after all -- you could have gone with 16 pounds, to maintain parity with the dram and the ounce. Y'all still likely would have screwed up the hundredweight, as 128lb, but you might have at least fixed things by making the ton 16 hundredweight/2048 lb, which would at least have been some lovely binary fractions. But 14 pounds? That's just madness.
- ChrisRR 7y agoOops yes, I would actually have said 10 stone 10. I just copied the comment text because I was focusing on the 2 meters
- Zenbit_UX 7y agoTell tale sign of a Canadian.