5 ms·

I don't understand the hate for this post. It's because it's much writing and reasoning about comparing two ways to describe exactly the same thing, and comes

I don't understand the hate for this post. It's because it's much writing and reasoning about comparing two ways to describe exactly the same thing, and comes to the conclusion that there is somehow a meaningful difference between them. No matter how you slice it, you have to do some third grade math to figure out the economic impact of fuel economy. This is not a big deal. It's the same faulty logic behind the supposed superiority of the metric system. Big whoop. You can multiply by 10. It's literally two sides of the same ruler.

lotharbot 14y ago
> "It's the same faulty logic behind the supposed superiority of the metric system." In grad school (applied math) it was always good for a laugh when we heard someone make a big deal out of metric. We always scaled out as much as possible to get nice dimensionless equations with the minimum number of parameters. That said, sometimes one choice of units or basic quantities is more convenient than another for a particular application. Not right or superior in a general sense, just better suited to some specific context.
- damoncali 14y ago
  This is great point. For metalworking, inches are great for length because the tolerance limits of a typical machine are around .001". You can use cm, but it's awkward. I've also found that with complex calculations, the metric system's ease can be frustrating - it hides "off by a power of 10" unit errors.
masklinn 14y ago
> It's because it's much writing and reasoning about comparing two ways to describe exactly the same thing, and comes to the conclusion that there is somehow a meaningful difference between them. This difference has been empirically demonstrated: people have a much harder time comparing comparisons in MPG than in L/100: they over-estimate efficiency changes in high-MPG and underestimate efficiency changes in low-MPG (e.g. 10 to 11 MPG and 30 to 45 MPG are roughly the same efficiency improvement of 1 gal per 100 miles but most people will eyeball the second case as being a significantly better improvement than the first) > No matter how you slice it, you have to do some third grade math to figure out the economic impact of fuel economy. No, L/100 (or gal/MI) is linearly related to fuel economy, there's no math to perform (you can do it if you want precise figures, but it's optional). > Big whoop. You can multiply by 10. Yeah, who cares if bytes are 4, 6, 8 or 9 bits after all?

lotharbot 14y ago

> "It's the same faulty logic behind the supposed superiority of the metric system." In grad school (applied math) it was always good for a laugh when we heard someone make a big deal out of metric. We always scaled out as much as possible to get nice dimensionless equations with the minimum number of parameters. That said, sometimes one choice of units or basic quantities is more convenient than another for a particular application. Not right or superior in a general sense, just better suited to some specific context.

damoncali 14y ago
This is great point. For metalworking, inches are great for length because the tolerance limits of a typical machine are around .001". You can use cm, but it's awkward. I've also found that with complex calculations, the metric system's ease can be frustrating - it hides "off by a power of 10" unit errors.

masklinn 14y ago

> It's because it's much writing and reasoning about comparing two ways to describe exactly the same thing, and comes to the conclusion that there is somehow a meaningful difference between them. This difference has been empirically demonstrated: people have a much harder time comparing comparisons in MPG than in L/100: they over-estimate efficiency changes in high-MPG and underestimate efficiency changes in low-MPG (e.g. 10 to 11 MPG and 30 to 45 MPG are roughly the same efficiency improvement of 1 gal per 100 miles but most people will eyeball the second case as being a significantly better improvement than the first) > No matter how you slice it, you have to do some third grade math to figure out the economic impact of fuel economy. No, L/100 (or gal/MI) is linearly related to fuel economy, there's no math to perform (you can do it if you want precise figures, but it's optional). > Big whoop. You can multiply by 10. Yeah, who cares if bytes are 4, 6, 8 or 9 bits after all?