4 ms·

> Also, all measurement systems are functionally arbitrary It's not a question whether they are arbitrary, it's a question if they are technically consistent w

> Also, all measurement systems are functionally arbitrary It's not a question whether they are arbitrary, it's a question if they are technically consistent within themselves. The metric system is: Everything is orders of magnitude, powers of ten, throughout all the measurements. Consequently, everything measured by base units of distance and mass follows the same rules: A Watt is 1 Joule per second, which is 1 Newtonmeter per second, which is 1 kilogramm per meter squared per second per second per second. 1 Grey (Gy) is 1 Joule of radiation absorbed in 1 kg of mass. If I have to do a calculation, I simply put the different weights and whatever in, and everything just falls into place on its own. Additionally, measurements of distance and mass are not independent, but based on one another, also by powers of ten. 1000 cubic centimeters (a litre) of Water at maximum density is 1kg of mass. 1 Millilitre of it is 1 gram of mass. 1 m³ of it is 1 metric ton, which is 1000 kg. Not only is that consistent, it also fits into our radix 10 numerical system like a hand into a fine glove. I have yet to find any internal consistency in the various imperial systems of measurement. Everything is based on yet another arbitrary comparison with real life objects or references, and so nothing is consistent with anything else. A mile is 8 furlongs, a furlong is 10 chains, a chain is 4 rods, a rod is 5.5 yards, a yard is 3 feet, a foot is 12 inches. Land is measured in acres, which is a furlong by a chain. Measurements of mass don't follow measurements of distance. A ton is 160 stone, or 160 * 8 "hundredweights", or 160 * 8 * 14 pounds, or 160 * 8 * 14 * 16 ounces. Not only is it not dependent on the distance measurements, the conversion rates are also dissimilar.

saalweachter 4y ago
> Measurements of mass don't follow measurements of distance. A ton is 160 stone, or 160 * 8 "hundredweights", or 160 * 8 * 14 pounds, or 160 * 8 * 14 * 16 ounces. Not only is it not dependent on the distance measurements, the conversion rates are also dissimilar. Woah woah woah, don't put that evil on us in the USA, that stone madness is all British. A US hundredweight is 100 lbs. The metric system didn't invent water volume and weight correspondence -- a pint's a pound the whole world round. 1 pint of water weighs one pound, and one fluid ounce of water weighs one ounce.
- usrbinbash 4y ago
  > Woah woah woah, don't put that evil on us in the USA, that stone madness is all British. > A US hundredweight is 100 lbs. The fact that there are more than one sort of imperial measurements, and that they are different, makes matters worse, rather than better. The metric system works the same, everywhere, in all countries, and in all languages. The only thing that changed since its inception, was switching from defining base units through comparison to physical templates, to defining them by natural universal constants, aka. making it even better than it already was. > The metric system didn't invent water volume and weight correspondence I didn't say it did, I said they depend on one another. And in metric, that works for ALL weights and measurements, and does so consistently. Cool, so 1 pint of water == 1 pound. How much is a pint in cubic inches? How many cubic furlongs of water do I need for 10 imperial Tons? Oh, and btw.: What exactly do you mean when you say "pint"? Because there are many different ones. Just a short list of examples: - Imperial Pint (568ml) - Liquid Pint (473ml) - Dry Pint (551ml) - Indian Pint (330ml) - The Australian pint (570ml) - The South Australian pint (425ml) Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pint#Other_pints https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pint#Other_pints If I have to rely on context, locality and customs to have a chance to understand what a unit of volume actually means, then there may be some issues with the underlying system. One reason why the metric system was invented, and why today almost every country in the world officially uses it, was to solve exactly these problems of ambiguity. When I say "liter", there is no ambiguity, it's always 1 cubic decimeter.
  - Aloha 4y ago
    US Customary Units (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_customary_units https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_customary_units) is not the same as Imperial (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_units https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_units) For what its worth, our system was standardized in 1832, and has been bound to SI equivalents since 1895. For a broader comparison of the differences - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_imperial_and_US_customary_measurement_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_imperial_and...
    - 3y ago
mulmen 4y ago
> It's not a question whether they are arbitrary, it's a question if they are technically consistent within themselves. It's important to note that the US does not and has never used the "Imperial System" which didn't even exist before 1826 which is post-revolutionary war. US Customary units evolved around the same time as the Metric system and used names from the Dutch and English systems for historical reasons. The motivation being global compatibility, not internal consistency. The US was an original signatory of the treaty of the Meter. The British Empire (and thus, Canada) was not. Personally I think internal consistency is overrated. It's nice to have but really reads like marketing wank. What matters to people doing work is if they can do their jobs. In those contexts change is far more costly than conversion to a new system. Tooling will already be built to deal with appropriate units. One example of this is in metalworking machines. Those tend to last for decades and entire companies have built portfolios of designs and programs in thousandths (base 10 for those playing along at home) of an inch. It is unlikely that converting all those designs to microns would justify the cost, so we don't. Almost all food packaging in the US has both systems printed on it but I am unclear how my dinner will taste better if I measure the ingredients in SI units. It just doesn't matter in that context.
- usrbinbash 4y ago
  > The motivation being global compatibility, not internal consistency. All the more reason to officially switch to metric. Because as of right now, only 3 countries in the world (US, Liberia and Myanmar) officially use imperial units, while the rest of the world uses the metric system. > The US was an original signatory of the treaty of the Meter. So? If I have a gymcard and don't go to the gym, it's not doing me any good. > It's nice to have but really reads like marketing wank. What matters to people doing work is if they can do their jobs. Indeed it does. That's why science and engineering are using the metric system. Including NASA btw. Being able to convert measurements easily, and have them correlate with our most common, radix 10, numerical system, is not "marketing wank", it's a built-in advantage. If I want to figure out what mass of water falls on an area in the metric system, I can do the calculation in my head. If I have to figure out hundredweights per acre, given that X inches of rain fell, I'm gonna need a calculator, a conversion table, and social context to know which kind of "hundredweight" I'm supposed to use. Oh btw. people "do work" in all these other countries. And guess how they measure things when doing that? Exactly: In meters and kilograms.

saalweachter 4y ago

> Measurements of mass don't follow measurements of distance. A ton is 160 stone, or 160 * 8 "hundredweights", or 160 * 8 * 14 pounds, or 160 * 8 * 14 * 16 ounces. Not only is it not dependent on the distance measurements, the conversion rates are also dissimilar. Woah woah woah, don't put that evil on us in the USA, that stone madness is all British. A US hundredweight is 100 lbs. The metric system didn't invent water volume and weight correspondence -- a pint's a pound the whole world round. 1 pint of water weighs one pound, and one fluid ounce of water weighs one ounce.

usrbinbash 4y ago
> Woah woah woah, don't put that evil on us in the USA, that stone madness is all British. > A US hundredweight is 100 lbs. The fact that there are more than one sort of imperial measurements, and that they are different, makes matters worse, rather than better. The metric system works the same, everywhere, in all countries, and in all languages. The only thing that changed since its inception, was switching from defining base units through comparison to physical templates, to defining them by natural universal constants, aka. making it even better than it already was. > The metric system didn't invent water volume and weight correspondence I didn't say it did, I said they depend on one another. And in metric, that works for ALL weights and measurements, and does so consistently. Cool, so 1 pint of water == 1 pound. How much is a pint in cubic inches? How many cubic furlongs of water do I need for 10 imperial Tons? Oh, and btw.: What exactly do you mean when you say "pint"? Because there are many different ones. Just a short list of examples: - Imperial Pint (568ml) - Liquid Pint (473ml) - Dry Pint (551ml) - Indian Pint (330ml) - The Australian pint (570ml) - The South Australian pint (425ml) Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pint#Other_pints https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pint#Other_pints If I have to rely on context, locality and customs to have a chance to understand what a unit of volume actually means, then there may be some issues with the underlying system. One reason why the metric system was invented, and why today almost every country in the world officially uses it, was to solve exactly these problems of ambiguity. When I say "liter", there is no ambiguity, it's always 1 cubic decimeter.
- Aloha 4y ago
  US Customary Units (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_customary_units https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_customary_units) is not the same as Imperial (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_units https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_units) For what its worth, our system was standardized in 1832, and has been bound to SI equivalents since 1895. For a broader comparison of the differences - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_imperial_and_US_customary_measurement_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_imperial_and...
  - 3y ago

mulmen 4y ago

> It's not a question whether they are arbitrary, it's a question if they are technically consistent within themselves. It's important to note that the US does not and has never used the "Imperial System" which didn't even exist before 1826 which is post-revolutionary war. US Customary units evolved around the same time as the Metric system and used names from the Dutch and English systems for historical reasons. The motivation being global compatibility, not internal consistency. The US was an original signatory of the treaty of the Meter. The British Empire (and thus, Canada) was not. Personally I think internal consistency is overrated. It's nice to have but really reads like marketing wank. What matters to people doing work is if they can do their jobs. In those contexts change is far more costly than conversion to a new system. Tooling will already be built to deal with appropriate units. One example of this is in metalworking machines. Those tend to last for decades and entire companies have built portfolios of designs and programs in thousandths (base 10 for those playing along at home) of an inch. It is unlikely that converting all those designs to microns would justify the cost, so we don't. Almost all food packaging in the US has both systems printed on it but I am unclear how my dinner will taste better if I measure the ingredients in SI units. It just doesn't matter in that context.

usrbinbash 4y ago
> The motivation being global compatibility, not internal consistency. All the more reason to officially switch to metric. Because as of right now, only 3 countries in the world (US, Liberia and Myanmar) officially use imperial units, while the rest of the world uses the metric system. > The US was an original signatory of the treaty of the Meter. So? If I have a gymcard and don't go to the gym, it's not doing me any good. > It's nice to have but really reads like marketing wank. What matters to people doing work is if they can do their jobs. Indeed it does. That's why science and engineering are using the metric system. Including NASA btw. Being able to convert measurements easily, and have them correlate with our most common, radix 10, numerical system, is not "marketing wank", it's a built-in advantage. If I want to figure out what mass of water falls on an area in the metric system, I can do the calculation in my head. If I have to figure out hundredweights per acre, given that X inches of rain fell, I'm gonna need a calculator, a conversion table, and social context to know which kind of "hundredweight" I'm supposed to use. Oh btw. people "do work" in all these other countries. And guess how they measure things when doing that? Exactly: In meters and kilograms.