6 ms·
> the units don't matter. What matters is picking a system and sticking to it That is exactly the problem with the imperial system. You have multiple units for
by geon 14y ago
> the units don't matter. What matters is picking a system and sticking to it
That is exactly the problem with the imperial system. You have multiple units for the same thing, and when they are multiples of each other, it is in base 12.
You could settle on feet and have kilofeet and millifeet, and you'd have a sensible system (apart from being incompatible with the rest of the world).
- ubernostrum 14y agoIt's easy to get dismissive about having multiple units, until you run into the contexts where they really are useful. Following up the example in one of my other comments: adopt the meter and the kilometer, or the foot and the kilofoot, and it won't matter to navigators, because they'll still use the nautical mile unless you literally put a gun to their heads, and if you do put a gun to their heads they'll show you why it's a much more practical unit for what they do.
- Permit 14y ago>they'll show you why it's a much more practical unit for what they do. Why? Why is it more practical? How is it better other than being more familiar? It blows me away that people can make the argument as it being "better".
- gshubert17 14y agoOne nautical mile is very nearly the length of one minute of arc at the earth's surface.
- DanBC 14y agoWhy does it matter if people are using "one nautical mile" or "1852 metres"? (http://metricviews.org.uk/2010/01/why-do-nautical-miles-linger-on/ http://metricviews.org.uk/2010/01/why-do-nautical-miles-ling...)
- masklinn 14y ago> That is exactly the problem with the imperial system. You have multiple units for the same thing, and when they are multiples of each other, it is in base 12. That's when you're lucky, can also be 3 (yard to feet), 22 (chain to yard), 10 (furlong to chain), 8 (miles to furlong, and that's why a mile is 5280 feet), 5 (gill to fluid ounce), 4 (acres to rod, gallons to quarts), 14 (stones to pounds) and probably everything in-between.
- tedunangst 14y agoImagine if we measured time using units of varying multiples. Every time a friend tells me "see you in two weeks", I'm like really? 2 times 7 times 24 times 60? Fucking asshole, do I look like a calculator?
- Nitramp 14y agoIncidentally, there was a metric calendar, invented alongside the metric system: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Republican_Calendar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Republican_Calendar It never gained much hold, probably for two reasons - its units were too far off the customary units, hard to convert, and didn't fit into the neat 10^3 system. The other units (metres, kilograms) were close or easily convertible into what they replaced (ell and pound, both at approximately 0.5 metres/kilograms). - the number of days in a year is set, so you never end up at a neatly decimal system with e.g. 10^3 days in a year (and even worse, it's a weird fraction leading to leap years and seconds)
- vorg 14y ago> the neat 10^3 system > a neatly decimal system with e.g. 10^3 Why is ^3 neat? 10 for the radix is standard all over the world now, except perhaps in IT where there's some competition from 16. But 3 for digit groups isn't very standard. East Asia uses groups of 4, so 10,000 and 100 million are standard. India uses lakh and crore, i.e. the oddball groupings 3, 5, 7, etc.
- jlgreco 14y agoWere time conversions as common or necessary as other unit conversions, you can bet your ass decimal time would have more takers. Even so, varying units does restrict how we can express time. Even if someone tells you something as simple as "half a week", you have to ask for clarification. And while "a week from now" translates to a date, forget about "a month from now." That could mean half a dozen different things.