3 ms·
> Inches/feet/yards and miles just remain separate things, never mixed How tall are you, maybe 70 inches? Or 5⅚ft? 178cm or 1.78m are so obviously equivalent
by Symbiote 1y ago
> Inches/feet/yards and miles just remain separate things, never mixed
How tall are you, maybe 70 inches? Or 5⅚ft?
178cm or 1.78m are so obviously equivalent it doesn't matter which is used.
> 12 inches in a foot and 3 feet in a yard make extremely convenient divisible factors.
This requires you to start with 12 inches. If you're making a cupboard to fit in an 18¾" (476mm) space, it's no use, or is only randomly useful.
If you can choose, then you can just as easily start with 36cm. For example, European kitchens are designed around a 300mm base size.
- chungy 1y ago> How tall are you, maybe 70 inches? Or 5⅚ft? Are you purposely doing this? That is obviously not what I meant. Nobody says "3 miles, 500 feet", they say "3.1 miles". Effectively two systems of distance measurement: inches/feet/yards (near scale), and miles (distant scale). "5 feet 10 inches" is completely normal and fine. > This requires you to start with 12 inches. If you're making a cupboard to fit in an 18¾" (476mm) space, it's no use, or is only randomly useful. So you cut the cupboard to fit a 18¾" space, no big deal. Same as anything else, and just as random as 476mm. Typically they come in (integer!) 12-inch, 24-inch, 36-inch, or 48-inch variants.
- saalweachter 1y agoThis is honestly the problem with critiquing any system from without: you don't know what's really wrong with it. Fucking bushels, man.
- simpaticoder 1y agoThey are talking past each other. One is saying, "metric is better than imperial", the other is saying "imperial works". Neither claim is relevant to the other.