3 ms·

Actually, I think metric could be improved with a few imperial equivalents - A "metric foot" as 30cm, for instance - because they are convenient measurements.

Actually, I think metric could be improved with a few imperial equivalents - A "metric foot" as 30cm, for instance - because they are convenient measurements. e.g. If somebody asks me "How tall is that person?" it's easier to say "About five foot" rather than "I dunno, about 155cm?" (I'm British, btw)

Tichy 14y ago
How does that even work - do you actually draw a mental image of yourself walking up that person's length foot by foot? And what if your feet are not 30cm, but longer or shorter? If you say "about x" you might as well estimate to 10cm precision and say "about 180cm" or "about 190cm".
Adirael 14y ago
On Spain we just say "one fifty five", not much longer and it's still easy.
rplnt 14y ago
Then you would end up: "Not about, how exactly tall he is?", "Oh, five foot and 5 cm." The 30cm unit would improve absolutely nothing, it would only complicate things. If you want to use approximate measurement, just round it to tens of centimeters. Or you can use meters with one decimal place, whatever comes more natural.
- SideburnsOfDoom 14y ago
  > If you want to use approximate measurement, just round it to tens of centimeters I totally agree. Rounding to powers of ten works comes for free in metric measurements using base ten numbers. This is by design.
sirn 14y ago
I only live in Metric-using country and I have no slightest idea how tall is five foot, whereas 155cm instantly comes to my mind as, ah, at around my eye level. It's all about familiarity.
- danielbarla 14y ago
  Sure, but that's 3 digits versus 1; if the requirement is to express common, human sized-objects with rough accuracy in as few words as possible, it works just fine. Really, it's all semantics (as you say), but there are specific cases where one might be a better fit than the other. It's the inconsistencies in imperial that are truly horrible, not the arbitrary standard unit...
  - gurkendoktor 14y ago
    Incidentally, I was raised metric-only in Germany and we would often say "I'm one head shorter/taller than X", which is close enough to a foot.
  - jeza 14y ago
    How about 5ft7 vs 170cm. The later seems easier to express to me. If only rough accuracy is required then you only really need to take note of the first two digits. Incidentally converting between the two is quite messy; first you must learn that 1ft = 12 inches, then multiply the 5 by 12 then add 7 then multiply by 2.54. Where as to convert a metric figure to imperial, it does not matter so much whether you are starting out in metres or centimetres.
  - cygx 14y ago
    > Sure, but that's 3 digits versus 1 It isn't, really. If asked about my approximate height, I'd say 'eins-achtzig' ie 1.8m (notice me omitting the unit), which in practice also has only a single significant digit (or 2 if you account for tall people) and to me isn't any more unwieldy than '6 foot'.
flaie 14y ago
This is only because you're british and because of the way you learned how to measure things when you were young. I'm totally unable to represent in my head how really tall "about five foot" is whereas 1,50m is totally understandable for me, easy to visualize.
- robmcm 14y ago
  I was educated during the conversion in the UK and commonly switch between the two. Speed and distances for travel in miles, shorter distances in meters. Height in feet for people, meters for building etc. Weight of people in stone, otherwise normally grams, liquids in pints for some things, liters for others. It's confusing, but makes sense in the long run.
  - venus 14y ago
    > It's confusing, but makes sense in the long run. You're perceiving things like this because it's what you were brought up with. None of the examples in which you claim it's "natural" to use imperial units make any sense to me at all. I don't think in miles, don't know how much a "stone" is, and pints are just pure confusion - which pint? there's about 4 types isn't there? It's what you grew up with, nothing more.
    - robmcm 14y ago
      Yes but getting the transition from one to the other takes a long long time.
SideburnsOfDoom 14y ago
I'm in England, and I view 500ml as a "metric pint"
jacquesm 14y ago
Yes, let's add another set of measurements, that sounds like a great idea.
mpclark 14y ago
It's our age, I'm afraid. I'm a foot'n'inch-using brit too, but my early teenage kids only deal in metric units (except for miles)
- robin_reala 14y ago
  My parents used pounds, stone, feet and inches; my school used kg, g, and cm (born in ’80). I’ve had to take a conscious decision to reset my thinking to metric only and to supply metric values when people ask for them. This all apart from miles of course, but when all your road signs are in miles and the speed limits in mph there’s not much you can do about that. Who knows what plans there are for that switchover…

Tichy 14y ago

How does that even work - do you actually draw a mental image of yourself walking up that person's length foot by foot? And what if your feet are not 30cm, but longer or shorter? If you say "about x" you might as well estimate to 10cm precision and say "about 180cm" or "about 190cm".

Adirael 14y ago

On Spain we just say "one fifty five", not much longer and it's still easy.

rplnt 14y ago

Then you would end up: "Not about, how exactly tall he is?", "Oh, five foot and 5 cm." The 30cm unit would improve absolutely nothing, it would only complicate things. If you want to use approximate measurement, just round it to tens of centimeters. Or you can use meters with one decimal place, whatever comes more natural.

SideburnsOfDoom 14y ago
> If you want to use approximate measurement, just round it to tens of centimeters I totally agree. Rounding to powers of ten works comes for free in metric measurements using base ten numbers. This is by design.

sirn 14y ago

I only live in Metric-using country and I have no slightest idea how tall is five foot, whereas 155cm instantly comes to my mind as, ah, at around my eye level. It's all about familiarity.

danielbarla 14y ago
Sure, but that's 3 digits versus 1; if the requirement is to express common, human sized-objects with rough accuracy in as few words as possible, it works just fine. Really, it's all semantics (as you say), but there are specific cases where one might be a better fit than the other. It's the inconsistencies in imperial that are truly horrible, not the arbitrary standard unit...
- gurkendoktor 14y ago
  Incidentally, I was raised metric-only in Germany and we would often say "I'm one head shorter/taller than X", which is close enough to a foot.
- jeza 14y ago
  How about 5ft7 vs 170cm. The later seems easier to express to me. If only rough accuracy is required then you only really need to take note of the first two digits. Incidentally converting between the two is quite messy; first you must learn that 1ft = 12 inches, then multiply the 5 by 12 then add 7 then multiply by 2.54. Where as to convert a metric figure to imperial, it does not matter so much whether you are starting out in metres or centimetres.
- cygx 14y ago
  > Sure, but that's 3 digits versus 1 It isn't, really. If asked about my approximate height, I'd say 'eins-achtzig' ie 1.8m (notice me omitting the unit), which in practice also has only a single significant digit (or 2 if you account for tall people) and to me isn't any more unwieldy than '6 foot'.

flaie 14y ago

This is only because you're british and because of the way you learned how to measure things when you were young. I'm totally unable to represent in my head how really tall "about five foot" is whereas 1,50m is totally understandable for me, easy to visualize.

robmcm 14y ago
I was educated during the conversion in the UK and commonly switch between the two. Speed and distances for travel in miles, shorter distances in meters. Height in feet for people, meters for building etc. Weight of people in stone, otherwise normally grams, liquids in pints for some things, liters for others. It's confusing, but makes sense in the long run.
- venus 14y ago
  > It's confusing, but makes sense in the long run. You're perceiving things like this because it's what you were brought up with. None of the examples in which you claim it's "natural" to use imperial units make any sense to me at all. I don't think in miles, don't know how much a "stone" is, and pints are just pure confusion - which pint? there's about 4 types isn't there? It's what you grew up with, nothing more.
  - robmcm 14y ago
    Yes but getting the transition from one to the other takes a long long time.

SideburnsOfDoom 14y ago

I'm in England, and I view 500ml as a "metric pint"

jacquesm 14y ago

Yes, let's add another set of measurements, that sounds like a great idea.

mpclark 14y ago

It's our age, I'm afraid. I'm a foot'n'inch-using brit too, but my early teenage kids only deal in metric units (except for miles)

robin_reala 14y ago
My parents used pounds, stone, feet and inches; my school used kg, g, and cm (born in ’80). I’ve had to take a conscious decision to reset my thinking to metric only and to supply metric values when people ask for them. This all apart from miles of course, but when all your road signs are in miles and the speed limits in mph there’s not much you can do about that. Who knows what plans there are for that switchover…