5 ms·

Yes I understand. Imperial is awesome because you can divide a foot by exactly 2, 3, 4 , and 6, which of course, is the main problem everyone has every day. Met

Yes I understand. Imperial is awesome because you can divide a foot by exactly 2, 3, 4 , and 6, which of course, is the main problem everyone has every day. Metric on the other hand sucks because none of my measurements will ever be nice round numbers. The hardware doesn’t think in base 10, but having more than that in imperial makes it better? Your document lists 12 mass units alone. I rest my case, what could possibly be more logical, convenient, and need less conversion. If communication was your major goal, then the system that is used by 7.3 billion people on this planet would be your choice.

mulmen 6y ago
> Yes I understand. Imperial is awesome because you can divide a foot by exactly 2, 3, 4 , and 6, which of course, is the main problem everyone has every day. Great, we agree. > Metric on the other hand sucks because none of my measurements will ever be nice round numbers. Depends on the situation. Metric units can be useful. > The hardware doesn’t think in base 10, but having more than that in imperial makes it better? No, it means neither system has an advantage so just pick one. Or invent a new one that allows better hardware utilization. > Your document lists 12 mass units alone. I rest my case, what could possibly be more logical, convenient, and need less conversion. I don’t convert, I just pick the unit that fits the problem. > If communication was your major goal, then the system that is used by 7.3 billion people on this planet would be your choice. Yeah I use the metric system all the time. Just like NASA.
- bernulli 6y ago
  >> The hardware doesn’t think in base 10, but having more than that in imperial makes it better? >No, it means neither system has an advantage so just pick one. Or invent a new one that allows better hardware utilization. But one of the systems does have an advantage because it stays in base 10, whereas the other doesn't. >> Your document lists 12 mass units alone. I rest my case, what could possibly be more logical, convenient, and need less conversion. >I don’t convert, I just pick the unit that fits the problem But you can't if you just use the `intuitive unit', and that's the whole problem. How would you measure the amount of liquid fuel in, say, the small tank for an attitude control thruster of some probe? How does that add to the overall mass of the whole probe? Or to the force you then need to accelerate it by a certain amount? And now compared to the whole launcher? In which units do you measure everything going on in a small wind tunnel model, and how do you compare that with the real thing? Under which conditions do you go from fluid ounces to ounces to cups to pints to quarts to gallons (also note that, again, you not only switch units but bases)? >Yeah I use the metric system all the time. Just like NASA. Good for you, it solves all the problems.
  - mulmen 6y ago
    > But one of the systems does have an advantage because it stays in base 10, whereas the other doesn't. That's a benefit to humans, not to hardware, which was the context in which I was speaking. > But you can't if you just use the `intuitive unit', and that's the whole problem. How would you measure the amount of liquid fuel in, say, the small tank for an attitude control thruster of some probe? How does that add to the overall mass of the whole probe? Or to the force you then need to accelerate it by a certain amount? And now compared to the whole launcher? Honestly? I'd probably measure it in volts. That's what the hardware is doing after all. That's my point, it doesn't help the computer to convert to base 10 and do calculations that way. Fuel level is measured in volts using binary. For a human something like grams probably makes more sense so sure, display it in those units. But that's a conversion. > In which units do you measure everything going on in a small wind tunnel model, and how do you compare that with the real thing? Again, volts on strain sensors. Maybe analog or maybe binary, in newtons. Again, the hardware doesn't think in units humans prefer. There has to be a conversion that doesn't use simple in-your-head math. > Under which conditions do you go from fluid ounces to ounces to cups to pints to quarts to gallons (also note that, again, you not only switch units but bases)? Cups, pints, quarts and gallons are all based on the ounce and powers of two. A gallon is 128oz, a half gallon is 64oz, a quart is 1/2 of a half gallon (or a quarter gallon) or 32oz (also, approximately a liter). A pint is half a quart or 1/8th of a gallon or 16oz, a cup is half a pint or 1/16th of a gallon or 8 oz. These fractional scales are really handy for converting between units in some situations. The unit fits the task at hand or you can trivially double or halve the size of the unit if needed. It's the same fractional scale and math used with the inch.
    - bernulli 6y ago
      Frankly, I can't even tell if you're just being sarcastic at this point.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - mulmen 6y ago
jerven 6y ago
I just want to add. It's quite common in carpentry to work with 120cm base wood. Which devides just as nice. And even then it's easier to convert when moving into bigger or smaller units.

mulmen 6y ago

> Yes I understand. Imperial is awesome because you can divide a foot by exactly 2, 3, 4 , and 6, which of course, is the main problem everyone has every day. Great, we agree. > Metric on the other hand sucks because none of my measurements will ever be nice round numbers. Depends on the situation. Metric units can be useful. > The hardware doesn’t think in base 10, but having more than that in imperial makes it better? No, it means neither system has an advantage so just pick one. Or invent a new one that allows better hardware utilization. > Your document lists 12 mass units alone. I rest my case, what could possibly be more logical, convenient, and need less conversion. I don’t convert, I just pick the unit that fits the problem. > If communication was your major goal, then the system that is used by 7.3 billion people on this planet would be your choice. Yeah I use the metric system all the time. Just like NASA.

bernulli 6y ago
>> The hardware doesn’t think in base 10, but having more than that in imperial makes it better? >No, it means neither system has an advantage so just pick one. Or invent a new one that allows better hardware utilization. But one of the systems does have an advantage because it stays in base 10, whereas the other doesn't. >> Your document lists 12 mass units alone. I rest my case, what could possibly be more logical, convenient, and need less conversion. >I don’t convert, I just pick the unit that fits the problem But you can't if you just use the `intuitive unit', and that's the whole problem. How would you measure the amount of liquid fuel in, say, the small tank for an attitude control thruster of some probe? How does that add to the overall mass of the whole probe? Or to the force you then need to accelerate it by a certain amount? And now compared to the whole launcher? In which units do you measure everything going on in a small wind tunnel model, and how do you compare that with the real thing? Under which conditions do you go from fluid ounces to ounces to cups to pints to quarts to gallons (also note that, again, you not only switch units but bases)? >Yeah I use the metric system all the time. Just like NASA. Good for you, it solves all the problems.
- mulmen 6y ago
  > But one of the systems does have an advantage because it stays in base 10, whereas the other doesn't. That's a benefit to humans, not to hardware, which was the context in which I was speaking. > But you can't if you just use the `intuitive unit', and that's the whole problem. How would you measure the amount of liquid fuel in, say, the small tank for an attitude control thruster of some probe? How does that add to the overall mass of the whole probe? Or to the force you then need to accelerate it by a certain amount? And now compared to the whole launcher? Honestly? I'd probably measure it in volts. That's what the hardware is doing after all. That's my point, it doesn't help the computer to convert to base 10 and do calculations that way. Fuel level is measured in volts using binary. For a human something like grams probably makes more sense so sure, display it in those units. But that's a conversion. > In which units do you measure everything going on in a small wind tunnel model, and how do you compare that with the real thing? Again, volts on strain sensors. Maybe analog or maybe binary, in newtons. Again, the hardware doesn't think in units humans prefer. There has to be a conversion that doesn't use simple in-your-head math. > Under which conditions do you go from fluid ounces to ounces to cups to pints to quarts to gallons (also note that, again, you not only switch units but bases)? Cups, pints, quarts and gallons are all based on the ounce and powers of two. A gallon is 128oz, a half gallon is 64oz, a quart is 1/2 of a half gallon (or a quarter gallon) or 32oz (also, approximately a liter). A pint is half a quart or 1/8th of a gallon or 16oz, a cup is half a pint or 1/16th of a gallon or 8 oz. These fractional scales are really handy for converting between units in some situations. The unit fits the task at hand or you can trivially double or halve the size of the unit if needed. It's the same fractional scale and math used with the inch.
  - bernulli 6y ago
    Frankly, I can't even tell if you're just being sarcastic at this point.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - mulmen 6y ago

jerven 6y ago

I just want to add. It's quite common in carpentry to work with 120cm base wood. Which devides just as nice. And even then it's easier to convert when moving into bigger or smaller units.