pull down to refresh
164 sats \ 5 replies \ @alt 16 Apr \ parent \ on: Why do Americans put so much store in their measurement system? ideasfromtheedge
you could argue metric is objectively more rational given that it standardises conversion factors between different size units, and makes those conversion factors into powers of 10, which matches nicely with our number system. it also has superior convenience for converting between units of different dimensions.
that said, there's nothing objectively better about the actual individual metric units themselves. a metre is no better than a foot for measuring length. a litre is no better than an ounce. even having the numbers match with our number system doesn't have to be unique to metric, since you could easily design a similar system using feet, milli-feet, kilo-feet and so on.
where the metric system objectively outperforms is in converting between units.
1 litre of volume is 1 cubic metre. taking the base unit of length and cubing it gives you the base unit of volume. it's all neat and fits together, and the numbers still line up with the base-ten counting system. doing the same with imperial, 1 cubic foot is 996.614 fluid ounces (standard imperial, not US), which is not as neat nor easy to remember nor easy to work with mathematically.
1 liter is not 1 cubic meter. The conversion is 1 cubic centimeter = 1 ml, so 1 liter = 1 cubic decimeter.
Those points are all about convenience of doing mental conversions, but there are conveniences of dividing English standard units: 12 and 16 are both more divisible than 10. It's all entirely subjective about which is more rational.
reply
reply
You can see how they didn't do the "rational" thing here, though. It should have been the conversion you mistakenly wrote, but they knew that was too unintuitive, so they fudged it.
reply
This is really what I'm really trying to angle at; "they". Why is it so triggering, tribal, and woven into identity (or at least it appears that way to me)?
Also, could you pass me a 2mm allen key, please? Sorry, I mean a 5/64 one.
Maybe it's because I'm not brought up on it but arguably metric measurements more human-centric when you get down small.
reply
I’m not using “they” in a tribalistic way. I’m just referring to the people who designed the metric system.
As the scale gets really large and really small, I think metric is a lot easier to use.
reply