5 ms·

Everything is already made to imperial, people are already comfortable using imperial. And the US is in an international position of strength in that we arent m

Everything is already made to imperial, people are already comfortable using imperial. And the US is in an international position of strength in that we arent manufacturing amd selling things to other countries, we are buying goods made elsewhere, so we're the ones generating the demand. We dont need to standardize with the rest of the world in the same way, and so we dont bother with the effort. In the areas where standardization is required, such as research and development, you'll see that scientists already use metric. The US actually originally planned to use metric, but if I recall correctly, the guy thomas Jefferson had invited to bring metric standards to the US ended up getting captured by pirates, so we never had the standards needed to switch and just didnt bother. But he time metrification was sweeping the globe, we'd already industrialized. And one advantage that imperial has over metric - there are more multiples of 12. 12 is more divisible. A third of a foot is 4 inches, while a third of a meter is 33.333333333333333 etc centimeters

kergonath 6y ago
I never get this point. Why does it matter that 100 is not divisible by 3? What makes a third of a metre so special compared to 3 tenths? Most things do not want to fit neatly on integers on one scale, you need decimal points anyway. In general contexts, either 30, 33, or 35 cm are perfectly acceptable. When accuracy is required, we use millimetres anyway (or micrometres, or nanometres, or angstroms...). I really don’t see how more integers factors is an advantage that outweighs the clusterfuck that are conversion factors between points, inches, feet, miles, and the other stupid units, or the fact that a nautical mile is not a mile. Besides, there’s absolutely nothing stopping anyone from using “a third of a metre” as a unit. For example, it’s common to have a line for 1/3 l in measuring cups.
- dredmorbius 6y ago
  Divisibility. Using base-ten units, you can divide precisely by only 2 and 5. Not only are 1/3 and 2/3 not integer subdivisions of ten, they're not even precise decimals, but asre repeating. Under base 12, there are precise subdivisions of 2, 3, 4, and 6 units. Under base 30 you can evenly divide by these as well as 10 and 15. Under base 60 (a commonly used measurement base, a usage example will come to you in time), subdivisions are the above, plus 12, 20, and 30. For practical use and arrangement, these can be highly useful capabilities. In angular measure (base 360, 60*4), there are divisions which relate to trigonometric functions but not decimal scales. And to truly transcent the rational there are radian measures based on pi. Under metric, you can still come up with precise divisibility, but only by disposing of the base-ten rationality. E.g., using 60cm or 60kg as a division basis. Ultimately, base ten is an arbitrary anatomical accident.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - kergonath 6y ago
    Yeah, I know. That's hat I see in any discussion about SI with Americans, along with "a table spoon makes more sense as a unit because I've got one in my kitchen drawer". But why does it matter? Why do you need 1/3 of a metre, and in which context would the 0.333...cm difference with 33 cm matter? This is smaller than the measurement error with common instruments we are likely to use in our daily lives. And there's nothing special about 1/3 m as a physical length, there's no reason why 1/3 m would be more useful than 0.30 m. I am not trying to be flippant, but I never got an answer to that question. Also, the conversion factor matters only when you actually convert values, not when you measure them. Again, there is nothing stopping anyone from using 1/3 m, or 1/42 m, or 1/π m as units, or even giving them fancy names. As a matter of fact, this is exactly what you do when you use an inch: by definition 1 in = 127/5 m. In practice the number of dividers is utterly insignificant, because using all the multiples of a centimetre (and millimetres if you're pushing it) is trivial. So getting a feeling for the difference between 32cm, 33cm and 34cm is very easy, and you end up with much better accuracy than if you limit yourself to eights, sixths and quarters. It's also the same scale down from sub-atomic scales all the way to the whole planet (I understand the use of AU, light-years and parsecs, as the SI prefixes tend to become ridiculous at these scales).
  - klyrs 6y ago
    Base 100! should make you happy. It's divisible by pretty much any integer you'd ever need. A bit unwieldy, but it really cuts down on fractions.
    - dredmorbius 6y ago
      That's factorial, not emphatic notation. Care to write the proposal?
      - kergonath 6y ago
        To be sure, counting in base 93326215443944152681699238856266700490715968264381621468592963895217599993229915608941463976156518286253697920827223758251185210916864000000000000000000000000 would be a bit cumbersome.
manquer 6y ago
the advantage you sight is exactly problem why the international foot and U.S. survey foot exist and the issue mentioned in article happens. it may be easy for us to think in fractions with repeating decimals, or irrational numbers ,it is super hard for computers which do Floating Point arithmetic, fractional arithmetic is not common from assembly, higher languages, or libraries we typically use to develop apps. This is why engineering is always in SI, and errors happen in the interface between people refusing to change, Given that most computing well happens in computers, It is lot more convenient for us change to a system computers understand, rather than keep a system we understand
- Quarrel 6y ago
  > engineering is always in SI Sadly several significant NASA failures would disagree.
  - ghaff 6y ago
    From quite a while ago. (The last failure I can think of related to units was over 20 years ago which means the design mistake was probably more like 25 years ago.)
- a1369209993 6y ago
  > a system computers understand Um, what? Computers understand base 2 (or 16 for compactness), not base 10. A centimeter is not 0.00999999977648258209228515625 meters.
  - moring 6y ago
    Computers can be made to understand base 10 though, if needed. We do so routinely when amounts of money are involved so a cent is a cent, even though 1/100 is nonterminating as a binary fraction.
    - a1369209993 6y ago
      By that logic they can be made to understand base twelve (et al) just as well. And 0x64 cents is perfectly reasonable amount of money, but that's because it's a integer, not a fraction.
Animats 6y ago
In the US, only building components are still Imperial measurements. US-made cars and aircraft have been hard metric for decades. Everything imported, other than building components, is hard metric. Outside the US, almost nobody has non-metric tools. So Imperial stuff is unacceptable for export. Home Depot creates the illusion that the US is mostly Imperial. They don't stock metric fasteners. One day I was in a Home Depot on a Sunday, and a Chinese woman was desperately looking for some screw she needed to repair some crucial appliance in her restaurant. It was metric, of course, and Home Depot didn't have an ordinary metric screw.
- Mountain_Skies 6y ago
  I buy metric screws from Home Depot all the time and have for years. How long ago did this happen?
panarky 6y ago
What is a tenth of a pound? How far is one thousand feet?

kergonath 6y ago

I never get this point. Why does it matter that 100 is not divisible by 3? What makes a third of a metre so special compared to 3 tenths? Most things do not want to fit neatly on integers on one scale, you need decimal points anyway. In general contexts, either 30, 33, or 35 cm are perfectly acceptable. When accuracy is required, we use millimetres anyway (or micrometres, or nanometres, or angstroms...). I really don’t see how more integers factors is an advantage that outweighs the clusterfuck that are conversion factors between points, inches, feet, miles, and the other stupid units, or the fact that a nautical mile is not a mile. Besides, there’s absolutely nothing stopping anyone from using “a third of a metre” as a unit. For example, it’s common to have a line for 1/3 l in measuring cups.

dredmorbius 6y ago
Divisibility. Using base-ten units, you can divide precisely by only 2 and 5. Not only are 1/3 and 2/3 not integer subdivisions of ten, they're not even precise decimals, but asre repeating. Under base 12, there are precise subdivisions of 2, 3, 4, and 6 units. Under base 30 you can evenly divide by these as well as 10 and 15. Under base 60 (a commonly used measurement base, a usage example will come to you in time), subdivisions are the above, plus 12, 20, and 30. For practical use and arrangement, these can be highly useful capabilities. In angular measure (base 360, 60*4), there are divisions which relate to trigonometric functions but not decimal scales. And to truly transcent the rational there are radian measures based on pi. Under metric, you can still come up with precise divisibility, but only by disposing of the base-ten rationality. E.g., using 60cm or 60kg as a division basis. Ultimately, base ten is an arbitrary anatomical accident.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- kergonath 6y ago
  Yeah, I know. That's hat I see in any discussion about SI with Americans, along with "a table spoon makes more sense as a unit because I've got one in my kitchen drawer". But why does it matter? Why do you need 1/3 of a metre, and in which context would the 0.333...cm difference with 33 cm matter? This is smaller than the measurement error with common instruments we are likely to use in our daily lives. And there's nothing special about 1/3 m as a physical length, there's no reason why 1/3 m would be more useful than 0.30 m. I am not trying to be flippant, but I never got an answer to that question. Also, the conversion factor matters only when you actually convert values, not when you measure them. Again, there is nothing stopping anyone from using 1/3 m, or 1/42 m, or 1/π m as units, or even giving them fancy names. As a matter of fact, this is exactly what you do when you use an inch: by definition 1 in = 127/5 m. In practice the number of dividers is utterly insignificant, because using all the multiples of a centimetre (and millimetres if you're pushing it) is trivial. So getting a feeling for the difference between 32cm, 33cm and 34cm is very easy, and you end up with much better accuracy than if you limit yourself to eights, sixths and quarters. It's also the same scale down from sub-atomic scales all the way to the whole planet (I understand the use of AU, light-years and parsecs, as the SI prefixes tend to become ridiculous at these scales).
- klyrs 6y ago
  Base 100! should make you happy. It's divisible by pretty much any integer you'd ever need. A bit unwieldy, but it really cuts down on fractions.
  - dredmorbius 6y ago
    That's factorial, not emphatic notation. Care to write the proposal?
    - kergonath 6y ago
      To be sure, counting in base 93326215443944152681699238856266700490715968264381621468592963895217599993229915608941463976156518286253697920827223758251185210916864000000000000000000000000 would be a bit cumbersome.

manquer 6y ago

the advantage you sight is exactly problem why the international foot and U.S. survey foot exist and the issue mentioned in article happens. it may be easy for us to think in fractions with repeating decimals, or irrational numbers ,it is super hard for computers which do Floating Point arithmetic, fractional arithmetic is not common from assembly, higher languages, or libraries we typically use to develop apps. This is why engineering is always in SI, and errors happen in the interface between people refusing to change, Given that most computing well happens in computers, It is lot more convenient for us change to a system computers understand, rather than keep a system we understand

Quarrel 6y ago
> engineering is always in SI Sadly several significant NASA failures would disagree.
- ghaff 6y ago
  From quite a while ago. (The last failure I can think of related to units was over 20 years ago which means the design mistake was probably more like 25 years ago.)
a1369209993 6y ago
> a system computers understand Um, what? Computers understand base 2 (or 16 for compactness), not base 10. A centimeter is not 0.00999999977648258209228515625 meters.
- moring 6y ago
  Computers can be made to understand base 10 though, if needed. We do so routinely when amounts of money are involved so a cent is a cent, even though 1/100 is nonterminating as a binary fraction.
  - a1369209993 6y ago
    By that logic they can be made to understand base twelve (et al) just as well. And 0x64 cents is perfectly reasonable amount of money, but that's because it's a integer, not a fraction.

Animats 6y ago

In the US, only building components are still Imperial measurements. US-made cars and aircraft have been hard metric for decades. Everything imported, other than building components, is hard metric. Outside the US, almost nobody has non-metric tools. So Imperial stuff is unacceptable for export. Home Depot creates the illusion that the US is mostly Imperial. They don't stock metric fasteners. One day I was in a Home Depot on a Sunday, and a Chinese woman was desperately looking for some screw she needed to repair some crucial appliance in her restaurant. It was metric, of course, and Home Depot didn't have an ordinary metric screw.

Mountain_Skies 6y ago
I buy metric screws from Home Depot all the time and have for years. How long ago did this happen?

panarky 6y ago

What is a tenth of a pound? How far is one thousand feet?