Metric vs Imperial Units

reboot wrote: Metric is a more convenient system for scientific purposes. But guess what? Most of the world population are NOT scientists.

That is a really interesting argument you are making. Of course, most of the world population is using the metric system.
To have more fun with your statement - scientists are the subset of population who have the easiest time switching between interesting systems of units, and, believe you me, the imperial is not the strangest.

Rui Ferreira wrote: what is half of one meter? 50 cm, what is that in feet...uhm 1.64 feet.. What is half a liter? 500 ml, what is that in cups or pints...? What is the height of an European room? 2.4 meters, what is that in feet...oh it is 7.87 feet Most of the world does just fine with metric

You are forcing me to convert between metric & imperial. I can easily flip your examples.

My examples all deal w/ conversions between units within the same system.

FWIW, I grew up using metric & after getting used to imperial units I actually likes it better for non-scientific purposes.

Rui Ferreira wrote: What is half a liter? 500 ml

Which also happens to be 500 cubic centimeters, and if it's water also happens to weigh 500 grams. Awfully darn convenient.

reboot wrote: You are forcing me to convert between metric & imperial. I can easily flip your examples. My examples all deal w/ conversions between units within the same system. FWIW, I grew up using metric & after getting used to it actually likes it better for non-scientific purposes.

He did exactly what you did, how do you not spot a circular argument when you see one?
I hope it's comforting to know that you could argue ceiling height with people in Liberia and Myanmar...

JK- wrote: Which also happens to be 500 cubic centimeters, and if it's water also happens to weigh 500 grams. Awfully darn convenient.

How dare you make a logical argument to support an anti-Murican unit system?!

Boissal wrote: I hope it's comforting to know that you could argue ceiling height with people in Liberia and Myanmar...

Or 300 million people in the United States.

Boissal wrote: He did exactly what you did, how do you not see a circular argument when you see one? I hope it's comforting to know that you could argue ceiling height with people in Liberia and Myanmar...

No he did not. All my examples are comparing using one set of units vs another for everyday purposes, on this planet, for actual human. A cup is the size of a cup b/c that's what people prefer. The ceil height is the way it is for average human height, not ants, elephants or aliens. The ambient temperature is, well, the ambient temperature on Earth, not Mars, Moon, or the Sun.

A base 10 system is divisible by 2, 5. But a base 12 system is divisible by 2,3,4,6. A base 16 system by 2,4,8. And a base 60 systems (seconds to minutes to hours) by 2,3,4,5,10,12,15,20,30. Those do very much make life easier in a lot of cases.

reboot wrote: No he did not. All my examples are comparing using one set of units vs another for everyday purposes, on this planet, for actual human. A cup is the size of a cup b/c that's what people prefer. The ceil height is the way it is for average human height, not ants, elephants or aliens. The ambient temperature is, well, the ambient temperature on Earth, not Mars, Moon, or the Sun.

What is one third of one cup? 0.3333 cups, 2.6667 ounces

So what is your argument, again?

reboot wrote: No he did not. All my examples are comparing using one set of units vs another for everyday purposes, on this planet, for actual human. A cup is the size of a cup b/c that's what people prefer. The ceil height is the way it is for average human height, not ants, elephants or aliens. The ambient temperature is, well, the ambient temperature on Earth, not Mars, Moon, or the Sun.

A cup holds the same volume everywhere? As in there is one type of cup and one only? Are you a complete fucking idiot? This has to be the least standardized unit of measurement one could come up with.
As for the ambient temperature issue, what exactly bothers you with the fact that water freezes at 0 C and vaporizes at 100 C while the "normal range" of ambient temperatures is about -30 C (shit's frozen) to +40 C (shit's nowhere near boiling)? You really think 32 F to 212 F with a range of 0 F to 100 F is any easier to handle?
And ceiling height? Give me a fucking break, not every house in the world is built along american standards. Travel much?

FrankPS wrote: Or 300 million people in the United States.

319 but who's counting. So you can compare ceiling height with 380 million people or 5% of the world. Cultural exception is a beautiful thing.

Rui Ferreira wrote: What is one third of one cup? 0.3333 cups, 2.6667 ounces So what is your argument, again?

Maybe people only care about divisibility by 2 for volume cup, pint, quart, etc)? Do you only consume liquid in increments of 10?

reboot wrote: What's 1/3 of a foot? 4 inches. What's 1/3 of a meter? 333.3333mm. How much water is in a cup? A cup. What's that in liters? What's the typical ceiling height? 8, 9 or 10 ft. What's that in meters? What's the typical ambient temperature range? 0-100F. In Celsius?-20 to 40. Metric is a more convenient system for scientific purposes. But guess what? Most of the world population are NOT scientists.

Think again! Start adding 1/16 to 1/4 in your measurements. It screws most people up since they can't even add a couple numbers together. I immediately come up with 5/16, but again...

A cm is 10mm, so now we can think in percents and use a ruler in that manner. 1m, 10dm, 100cm, 1000mm. It breaks down so beautifully. I do all my woodworking in metric measurement when possible. The precision is so much more simple to work with. In complex layouts of edges, cutouts, spacing, etc it just makes for a better day. Measure twice, cut once. One bad fraction calculation of inches and your project looks like shit.

Celsius is just as detailed, you get the same precision from the instruments, but it takes a decimal to see the detail. It makes much more sense, as 0C is where water freezes, and 100C is where it boils at sea level. Science is done in Kelvins, where K=C-273.15, where 0K is absolute zero - entropy's completion. We just set the scale around our most useful molecule, water.

Interestingly, I think we haven't reached the single unifying physics units due to not having the right numbers/scale/ratios/relationships, etc. Maybe if any extraterrestrials could chime in...

All this talk makes me long for a lunch time pint.

reboot wrote: Maybe people only care about divisibility by 2 for volume cup, pint, quart, etc)? Do you only consume liquid in increments of 10?

yes, 30ml for cough medicine for example...

reboot wrote:FWIW, I grew up using metric & after getting used to imperial units I actually likes it better for non-scientific purposes.

Just curious, you don't happen to work for Lockheed Martin , do you?

I'll just leave this here for reboot. Tell me again how working in base 10 is more complicated because there are only 2 prime dividers (same for the other bases you listed btw, it's funny how those prime dividers work).

FWIW, I grew up using metric & after getting used to imperial units I actually think there isn't a more confusing, inconvenient, and outdated way to measure. YMMV

Le Mess

Rui Ferreira wrote: yes, 30ml for cough medicine for example...

HELLO!! My f'n math-less ex gave my son 1T of medicine instead of 1t (T=Tablespoon t=teaspoon), so the antibiotic was overdosed and she ran out in half the time. The needed span didn't happen.

Quitting antibiotics before the date prescribed allows the survivors to replicate, conveying antibiotic resistance and rendering the antibiotic useless.

As for cough medicine, just tip the damn bottle and chug for a few seconds. YOu will feel waaay better.

Boissal wrote:I'll just leave this here for reboot. Tell me again how working in base 10 is more complicated because there are only 2 prime dividers (same for the other bases you listed btw, it's funny how those prime dividers work). FWIW, I grew up using metric & after getting used to imperial units I actually think there isn't a more confusing, inconvenient, and outdated way to measure. YMMV

You do realize nautical mile actually simplified computation in the pre-calculator/computer days (& the Brits dominated the sea)?

It's incredibly useful that in the metric system, distance, volume, mass, energy, temperature units can be easily converted between them. But we got computers these days; it shouldn't be a big deal anymore.

aikibujin wrote: Just curious, you don't happen to work for Lockheed Martin , do you?

Space projects are done in metric. US like the inches, feet, lbs (or lbm?), etc. US Aerospace (commercial side) likes metric. Some companies (like Boeing, LM, NGC) use both. It's not much of a pain to convert, but errors do happen, like your famous example. I've worked in commercial aerospace for years with both US and international aerospace companies. Metric makes things easier! From manufacturing, building, certifying, and selling the darn things (from airplane toilets to rockets).

For those in the industry (engineering, scientific, R&D, etc) are already working with a mix of units - it's part of the job. For those outside, you learn what you use.

As for climbing, being that most of the gear is designed, manufactured, and certified to INTERNATIONAL standards (read UIAA), units should be presented per industry standard.

But what do I care, I tie knots at the end of my ropes when rappelling.

reboot wrote:You do realize nautical mile actually simplified computation in the pre-calculator/computer days (& the Brits dominated the sea)?

Grasping at straws much?
Let me quote you for context here:

reboot wrote:comparing using one set of units vs another for everyday purposes, on this planet, for actual human.

So you're arguing about everyday use but you pull out one example of the imperial system simplifying matters in the context of 17th navigation?

The nautical mile pre-dates the SI system, is now incorporated in said SI system (which uses NO imperial units), and is currently defined based on the meter. Nice. Guess you convinced me to keep rappelling 115 feet on my 70 meter rope.

Boissal wrote: is currently defined based on the meter.

You mean retro-fitted. But whatever, you are the one that brought it up in a chart. Like I said, it was great to have a metric system for scientists before computers. Now, it should't be a big deal.

Personally, I think it's pretty funny the supposed smart ones (scientists) are bitching about the conversion. But apparently forcing the non-scientists to use it is a no brainer. No wonder the same "smart" people are still scratching their head at why there are so many Trump supporters & Brexit passed.

Boissal wrote:Guess you convinced me to keep rappelling 115 feet on my 70 meter rope.

If 50 meter pitch becomes standard you'll have a point. But both ft & meter are too precise for rope/pitch length.

Mike Brady wrote: How do imperial units benefit you in a way that metric units do not? They are better in all ways besides the fact that we grew up with a different system.

+100