4 ms·

> Alternative take: the US customary units have stuck around because SI has failed to present itself as better enough to switch. The thing that doesn't make se

> Alternative take: the US customary units have stuck around because SI has failed to present itself as better enough to switch. The thing that doesn't make sense about this argument – the US and the UK are the only major economies which haven't adopted metric for 90%+ of use cases. (Everywhere retains non-metric units in certain exceptional cases – e.g. most countries use feet for altitude in aviation, although that is largely due to the economic influence of the US, and to a lesser extent the UK.) And even the UK uses metric significantly more than the US does, despite the retention of miles for road distances being an obvious holdout. If your argument really explains why the US hasn't switched, how does it explain the fact that the vast majority of the rest of the world has?

bitcurious 3y ago
To play along with the argument, prior to the metric system, units were very local. So it’s not like China and Ghana and Russia and France were all using inches and feet and cups and pints, rather they were all using their own little units of measure, which on the whole turned out to be less convenient than the metric system. The UK and US happened to be (mostly) aligned on a more convenient system that could outcompete the metric system. That said, I think economic resiliency and early mover (did)advantage are the other parts of that story. Not many nations can handle the trade impediment of their own units of measure, but the UK and US were/are both large enough. And I think because we industrialized early, switching with the rest of the world was more expensive, so we stuck with it.
- skissane 3y ago
  > So it’s not like China and Ghana and Russia and France were all using inches and feet and cups and pints, rather they were all using their own little units of measure, which on the whole turned out to be less convenient than the metric system. The UK and US happened to be (mostly) aligned on a more convenient system that could outcompete the metric system. English units weren’t a “more convenient” system than that used by the rest of Europe. Before the metric system, France used feet and inches - and the French foot was composed of 12 French inches. The difference was that the French inch was a little bit longer than the English one - about 7%, although the ratio between the two varied over time, because before all this modern technology made it easier, maintaining consistent units was very hard. Feet and inches go back to the Roman Empire, but everyone ended up using a slightly different foot/inch. Even the US and UK used to use different inches (pre-1959), although the difference between the two was microscopic (but was considered important in US land surveying, since over hundreds of miles it can add up to several feet.) And today the US and UK still define non-metric volume measurements completely differently - the UK gallon is 20% larger than the US one > And I think because we industrialized early, switching with the rest of the world was more expensive, so we stuck with it. The problem with that argument is that US industry is actually more metricated than US everyday life. It is in domestic and consumer settings where the US lags the most in the adoption of the metric system; in industrial settings, it depends on the industry, but some US industries use metric heavily (for example, design and manufacturing of automobiles.)
- Symbiote 3y ago
  Remember the British system is called "Imperial Units" -- these were used for a huge chunk of the world! Everywhere except Britain has switched, and Britain was in the process of changing to metric when it became one of the first media-pushed us-vs-them political issues. Close to all trade, construction, design, healthcare etc in Britain is done in metric units.

bitcurious 3y ago

To play along with the argument, prior to the metric system, units were very local. So it’s not like China and Ghana and Russia and France were all using inches and feet and cups and pints, rather they were all using their own little units of measure, which on the whole turned out to be less convenient than the metric system. The UK and US happened to be (mostly) aligned on a more convenient system that could outcompete the metric system. That said, I think economic resiliency and early mover (did)advantage are the other parts of that story. Not many nations can handle the trade impediment of their own units of measure, but the UK and US were/are both large enough. And I think because we industrialized early, switching with the rest of the world was more expensive, so we stuck with it.

skissane 3y ago
> So it’s not like China and Ghana and Russia and France were all using inches and feet and cups and pints, rather they were all using their own little units of measure, which on the whole turned out to be less convenient than the metric system. The UK and US happened to be (mostly) aligned on a more convenient system that could outcompete the metric system. English units weren’t a “more convenient” system than that used by the rest of Europe. Before the metric system, France used feet and inches - and the French foot was composed of 12 French inches. The difference was that the French inch was a little bit longer than the English one - about 7%, although the ratio between the two varied over time, because before all this modern technology made it easier, maintaining consistent units was very hard. Feet and inches go back to the Roman Empire, but everyone ended up using a slightly different foot/inch. Even the US and UK used to use different inches (pre-1959), although the difference between the two was microscopic (but was considered important in US land surveying, since over hundreds of miles it can add up to several feet.) And today the US and UK still define non-metric volume measurements completely differently - the UK gallon is 20% larger than the US one > And I think because we industrialized early, switching with the rest of the world was more expensive, so we stuck with it. The problem with that argument is that US industry is actually more metricated than US everyday life. It is in domestic and consumer settings where the US lags the most in the adoption of the metric system; in industrial settings, it depends on the industry, but some US industries use metric heavily (for example, design and manufacturing of automobiles.)
Symbiote 3y ago
Remember the British system is called "Imperial Units" -- these were used for a huge chunk of the world! Everywhere except Britain has switched, and Britain was in the process of changing to metric when it became one of the first media-pushed us-vs-them political issues. Close to all trade, construction, design, healthcare etc in Britain is done in metric units.