5 ms·

Metrification is fine for engineers, but what problem does it solve for people driving cars? Miles are miles everywhere in the United States, and it causes noon

Metrification is fine for engineers, but what problem does it solve for people driving cars? Miles are miles everywhere in the United States, and it causes noone confusion. Again, what problem would switching from Fahrenheit to Celsius solve for most people? Rough estimates of outside temperature ranges would have a lower resolution? 100 degrees would be the boiling point of water instead of roughly the temperature of the human body? It would be easier to record measurements when dividing things by 10, but more difficult when dividing by 4 or 8, when in day-to-day life people more commonly divide things into 4 or 8? Imperial units have the advantage of being human-scale, and consequently they are very useful for when humans want to estimate a quantity. And this is something people want to do all the time. Europe had the problem of a thousand-plus years of poorly-defined standards that varied from country to country and even within countries. Metrification solved a real commercial problem, and there were so many competing standards that another one didn't really create a problem. This is not a problem the United States has, and metrification proponents always seem to imagine that metrification would be costless.

shmerl 11y ago
It is a problem in US. Simply too much inertia and lack of political will to move this forward. Uniformity with other countries helps too. Why do you think military gets it better than others? 0-100 for freezing and boiling points is way simpler to use, especially when 0 is a border for significant change in environmental conditions when temperature goes in either direction from it. Most common temperatures will be two digits.
- mejari 11y ago
  You didn't actually answer the question of what problem it solves, you just stated that it is a problem.
  - shmerl 11y ago
    I did. Simplicity of usage and uniformity.
    - mejari 11y ago
      But how are those problems to drivers today? The vast majority of drivers don't drive between multiple systems very often, so within their experience it is uniform. And what is simpler about km vs miles, given that everyone already knows miles?
      - shmerl 11y ago
        I'm not sure why you single out drivers. It's a global change. I just brought examples above where there is an apparent lack of progress in metrification effort. Road signs aren't the only such example.
        mejari 11y ago
        Just providing that as an example. The same points hold true for temperature. Why is it more simple and more uniform from the perspective of a society that is mostly non metric? What problems would switching solve that people actually deal with on a semi-regular basis? I ask this because unless there are such problems what is the motivation to switch? Why should we?
        shmerl 11y ago
        Those questions should be answered as a whole. And metric systems is simpler overall - there is no debate about it. I don't think it makes any sense to switch to it only partially. The only reason US doesn't switch is inertia (i.e. habit), and not concerns like "how it can improve things".
        mejari 11y ago
        >The only reason US doesn't switch is inertia (i.e. habit), and not concerns like "how it can improve things" You say that like they're two different things. No one does anything just because. The benefits of switching have to outweigh the benefits of staying the same, one of which is always going to be "it's already done". Why bother reversing inertia and switching unless it improves things? You aren't articulating why the change should be made, you're just asserting that it should. And just saying "It's simpler" means nothing, because being simple isn't a benefit all on it's own. Does it being simpler mean X number of increased work hours because we aren't wasting time converting? Does it being simpler mean Y fewer accidents on the road or in the workplace? These are reasons, not just "it's simpler".
- panglott 11y ago
  Metrification certainly solves a problem for the military, that involves NATO collaboration and international operations. The military already spends a lot of energy training soldiers, so the costs of metrification are lessened. This is not true of most Americans in their day-to-day life.
  - shmerl 11y ago
    > This is not true of most Americans in their day-to-day life. Not really. There is a lot of interactions and Internet age doesn't make keeping this discrepancy easier.
- panglott 11y ago
  The thing is, these benefits are very small to most Americans while the costs of metrification are pretty large. Most Americans need to drive to an airport and spent half a day or more flying in order to get to a region where metrification is standard. Imperial is used for thousands of miles in every direction, except for specialized use cases. In most day-to-day life, people are talking about temperature in terms of weather, not freezing and boiling. Weather in Fahrenheit ranges from about 0 to 120 most places in the US most of the time, making it easy to talk about temperature ranges in decades, whereas Celsius ranges from -10 to 45. There is an advantage here either way?
  - shmerl 11y ago
    For me it's pretty intuitive, that -1°C and +1°C mean pretty different conditions outside. Anything with - is "cold"/"freezing", anything with + is "warm"/"hot". On the other hand +31°F and +33°F aren't as expressive for the same idea. Boiling is also a pretty important point (for cooking). So having it at 100 is handy. Water is common in everyday life. Brine? No idea why anyone would use that for common measurements. Plus, using two digits in the majority of cases is simpler. The bottom line, systems like Fahrenheit end up being used when scientists don't think much about practicality in everyday life. It's good no one is using Kelvin for that purpose.
    - Dylan16807 11y ago
      > -1°C and +1°C mean pretty different conditions outside They really don't, though. Temperature varies over an area, varies by hour, melting and freezing can take days when you're close to the limit... It can snow when the surface is above freezing. It can rain when the surface is below freezing. I can show you two days in any winter, -1C and 1C, and they'll look exactly the same. And while 100 is convenient for boiling, 200 is roughly just as convenient.
      - shmerl 11y ago
        > They really don't, though. They roughly do. It's just a mental marker (i.e. 0°), which I find to be nicer than 32°.
serge2k 11y ago
The whole it just makes more sense for humans argument falls apart when you realize that billions of people do just fine with the metric system.
- panglott 11y ago
  The whole "[SI] just makes more sense" argument just falls apart when you realize that hundreds of millions of people do just fine with the imperial system. ;)
  - shmerl 11y ago
    Hm. Let's see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrication#/media/File:Metrication_by_year_map.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrication#/media/File:Metric... I surely see a value in uniform system here. Looks like most agree with me. The only reason not to do it is "I'm not used to it" argument.
  - walshemj 11y ago
    Not if you have a technical job imperial is much harder that SI units and remember there is more than one imperial standard eg a Pint in the USA is not a the same as a Pint in the UK
Dylan16807 11y ago
When do you see people dividing things by 8? 10's a lot more useful. Can you be specific about what you mean by human scale? Both temperature systems are in the same range. A yard and a meter are almost the same. A mile and a kilometer are in the same range. A pound and a kilogram are in the same range. Cup and liter are both about a factor of two away from a typical glass size. 5mL is about as easy as 'teaspoon' while being clearer and easier to divide into typical minimum recipe amounts. Where does metric do worse?

shmerl 11y ago

It is a problem in US. Simply too much inertia and lack of political will to move this forward. Uniformity with other countries helps too. Why do you think military gets it better than others? 0-100 for freezing and boiling points is way simpler to use, especially when 0 is a border for significant change in environmental conditions when temperature goes in either direction from it. Most common temperatures will be two digits.

mejari 11y ago
You didn't actually answer the question of what problem it solves, you just stated that it is a problem.
- shmerl 11y ago
  I did. Simplicity of usage and uniformity.
  - mejari 11y ago
    But how are those problems to drivers today? The vast majority of drivers don't drive between multiple systems very often, so within their experience it is uniform. And what is simpler about km vs miles, given that everyone already knows miles?
    - shmerl 11y ago
      I'm not sure why you single out drivers. It's a global change. I just brought examples above where there is an apparent lack of progress in metrification effort. Road signs aren't the only such example.
      - mejari 11y ago
        Just providing that as an example. The same points hold true for temperature. Why is it more simple and more uniform from the perspective of a society that is mostly non metric? What problems would switching solve that people actually deal with on a semi-regular basis? I ask this because unless there are such problems what is the motivation to switch? Why should we?
        shmerl 11y ago
        Those questions should be answered as a whole. And metric systems is simpler overall - there is no debate about it. I don't think it makes any sense to switch to it only partially. The only reason US doesn't switch is inertia (i.e. habit), and not concerns like "how it can improve things".
        mejari 11y ago
        >The only reason US doesn't switch is inertia (i.e. habit), and not concerns like "how it can improve things" You say that like they're two different things. No one does anything just because. The benefits of switching have to outweigh the benefits of staying the same, one of which is always going to be "it's already done". Why bother reversing inertia and switching unless it improves things? You aren't articulating why the change should be made, you're just asserting that it should. And just saying "It's simpler" means nothing, because being simple isn't a benefit all on it's own. Does it being simpler mean X number of increased work hours because we aren't wasting time converting? Does it being simpler mean Y fewer accidents on the road or in the workplace? These are reasons, not just "it's simpler".
panglott 11y ago
Metrification certainly solves a problem for the military, that involves NATO collaboration and international operations. The military already spends a lot of energy training soldiers, so the costs of metrification are lessened. This is not true of most Americans in their day-to-day life.
- shmerl 11y ago
  > This is not true of most Americans in their day-to-day life. Not really. There is a lot of interactions and Internet age doesn't make keeping this discrepancy easier.
panglott 11y ago
The thing is, these benefits are very small to most Americans while the costs of metrification are pretty large. Most Americans need to drive to an airport and spent half a day or more flying in order to get to a region where metrification is standard. Imperial is used for thousands of miles in every direction, except for specialized use cases. In most day-to-day life, people are talking about temperature in terms of weather, not freezing and boiling. Weather in Fahrenheit ranges from about 0 to 120 most places in the US most of the time, making it easy to talk about temperature ranges in decades, whereas Celsius ranges from -10 to 45. There is an advantage here either way?
- shmerl 11y ago
  For me it's pretty intuitive, that -1°C and +1°C mean pretty different conditions outside. Anything with - is "cold"/"freezing", anything with + is "warm"/"hot". On the other hand +31°F and +33°F aren't as expressive for the same idea. Boiling is also a pretty important point (for cooking). So having it at 100 is handy. Water is common in everyday life. Brine? No idea why anyone would use that for common measurements. Plus, using two digits in the majority of cases is simpler. The bottom line, systems like Fahrenheit end up being used when scientists don't think much about practicality in everyday life. It's good no one is using Kelvin for that purpose.
  - Dylan16807 11y ago
    > -1°C and +1°C mean pretty different conditions outside They really don't, though. Temperature varies over an area, varies by hour, melting and freezing can take days when you're close to the limit... It can snow when the surface is above freezing. It can rain when the surface is below freezing. I can show you two days in any winter, -1C and 1C, and they'll look exactly the same. And while 100 is convenient for boiling, 200 is roughly just as convenient.
    - shmerl 11y ago
      > They really don't, though. They roughly do. It's just a mental marker (i.e. 0°), which I find to be nicer than 32°.

serge2k 11y ago

The whole it just makes more sense for humans argument falls apart when you realize that billions of people do just fine with the metric system.

panglott 11y ago
The whole "[SI] just makes more sense" argument just falls apart when you realize that hundreds of millions of people do just fine with the imperial system. ;)
- shmerl 11y ago
  Hm. Let's see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrication#/media/File:Metrication_by_year_map.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrication#/media/File:Metric... I surely see a value in uniform system here. Looks like most agree with me. The only reason not to do it is "I'm not used to it" argument.
- walshemj 11y ago
  Not if you have a technical job imperial is much harder that SI units and remember there is more than one imperial standard eg a Pint in the USA is not a the same as a Pint in the UK

Dylan16807 11y ago

When do you see people dividing things by 8? 10's a lot more useful. Can you be specific about what you mean by human scale? Both temperature systems are in the same range. A yard and a meter are almost the same. A mile and a kilometer are in the same range. A pound and a kilogram are in the same range. Cup and liter are both about a factor of two away from a typical glass size. 5mL is about as easy as 'teaspoon' while being clearer and easier to divide into typical minimum recipe amounts. Where does metric do worse?