• Iron Lynx@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    6 months ago

    Really though, the most ardent defence of USC units is fuelled by great amounts of Copium. The US Customary set of measurements is several independent systems of measurements which often radically different origins and sometimes irrational conversions, all stacked upon each other and dressed in a trench coat. For instance, the mile has Roman origins while the inch and foot were defined separately, much later, and with a lot of regional variation. The French foot was longer than the English foot, which is why Napoleon was listed as 5’2" tall while he was actually closer to 5’9", or 1.71 m, which was pretty average for the time.

    Which one of these is more straightforward to calculate:

    • You are tasked with installing a rail along a 1 mile long bridge. You know you can use two half inch bolts to affix it every three feet. How many bolts do you need?

    • You are tasked with installing a rail along a 1,5 km long bridge. You know you can use two M12 bolts to affix it every metre. How many bolts do you need?

    Conversions within dimensions in USC require you to memorise arbitrary conversion numbers. Conversions within dimensions in SI require you to move the comma a few spots.

    Besides, if the US Customary system of units is so great, why did most of the world voluntarily switch to SI units?

    • Zerush@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 months ago

      Good example with the Bridge, it’s exact the point with the USC units, source of fatal errors.

    • Xavienth@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      I don’t like the bridge example because the values were chosen (intentionally or not) conveniently for metric. Change it to every 4 feet or 1.3 metres and it’s no longer convenient in either system. There are better examples that demonstrate the superiority of metric.

      For example, pool cleaner says 1 unit per 10,000 gal or 40,000 L.

      21’ diameter, 3’ tall. So ~1000 ft³. Multiply by 1728/231 for gallons.

      7 m diameter, 1 m tall. So ~40 m³. Multiply by 1000 for litres.

      If you’re curious where 1728/231 comes from, there are 12³ (1728) in³ for a ft³. Then the gallon is defined as 231 in³

  • MossyHabitat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    For anything construction-scale, all supplies sold in the US are based on 4x8’ sheet goods and 16-24" on-center framing. I also concede that king George the 74th’s foot length is more human-scale when dealing with large measurements: 20 feet vs 6096 mm. I still use metric when possible, however - I find it easier and more accurate.

    For EVERYTHING else I’ve switched to using metric.

    Context: I grew up in the US using imperial units and only pivoted to the metric system in 2020. If I grew up thinking in metric and building supplies/standards used it, it’d be superior in every way.

    TL;DR I like my imperial/metric combo tape measure.

      • MossyHabitat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        All plans use mm exclusively. Airport blueprints, for example, are in mm. At first blush it seems excessive, but it makes sense from a consistency & accuracy POV - 6.096m takes up 2 more characters than 6096 - they don’t even need to specify the units “mm”, because it is assumed, and anything else introduces room for error.

    • MeowZedong@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      I get angry when hardware uses imperial units because I can’t use my metric tools, which are way the fuck easier. Who wants to use 5/8" when you can use 16?

  • stillwater@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    There are (huge) costs to retooling production to move from imperial to metric. Even if a company wanted to make that move they’d have to transition in phases and will likely end up with additional equipment to maintain. There’s also significant training for workers (who will likely commit errors in the beginning) which will impact production. And what happens to the old equipment? I’d guess a significant portion of that would end up getting scrapped and landfilled.

  • wuphysics87@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    Perhaps I’m biased, but sometimes it’s easier to work in fractions. Also, setting room temp is objectively better in F. I can tell the difference between 74 and 75. That said, I’m also a scientist so I’m permitted these opinions.

  • frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    6 months ago

    It’s easier for handling real things.

    Try doing woodwork in feet and inches for a day. Try it in metric for a day. You’ll see what I mean.

    It was crafted for the human-scale, whereas metric was worked out on paper by French philosophers.

    • Zerush@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Human scale? Not yours or mines, measures of the ffoot, thumbs and random desires of a dead British King in the far past. No problem in metrics, at least if I don’t build a hut in the wood with an axe, then maybe using parts of the body for measures are usefull. Not the first furniture I made, also working in metal. Also in mathematic and physic the metric system is way better (Even NASA now uses the metric system since 2 probes crashed on Marte due to calculation errors in the imperial system)

      • Shareni@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        6 months ago

        Just wait for an American to tell you how it’s easier to use fractions with imperial. I’ve legit seen them say shit like 3/8 of an inch is easier to think about than 9.5mm.

      • frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        I doubt it had much to do with kings, as they didn’t do handicrafts or have to measure things like grocers/traders do.

        That image is really stupid, too much wrong with it to go thru.

    • MossyHabitat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 months ago

      Woodworker in US here, and I prefer metric. Also consider the thickness of plywood is actually in metric now - “3/4” is actually 18 mm but they have to market it as 23/32.

      I’ve chosen to join the other 8 billion people on earth.

    • silliewous@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Are you telling us that you are actually making, say a box, by measuring it with your hands and feet? That’s barbaric! I’m guessing you actually use a tape measure like the rest of us.

      • frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        You and @Zerush both resorted to this fake idea that [not using the metric convention] = [measuring things with your body-parts]

        Very weird lie. I’ll take it as an admission you’re out of sensible points.

        • silliewous@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          6 months ago

          That is what you’re implying by saying that imperial is more intuitive. But if you’re measuring with normal measurement equipment that argument is moot. At that point using imperial is easier for you just because you’re used to it. When normal people have to use imperial for things, all intuition is out the door and it will be hell.

          You’re failing to externalise your own experience from the situation. Maybe you should practice that a bit more.

    • dellish@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Woodworking, sure. You have a piece of wood 2’ 5 5/8“ long that you need to cut into quarters. Can you calculate that in your head? Metric is SOOOO much easier.

      • bloodfart@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        here’s how i did: 2’/4=6", 5 5/8"/4=1 13/32, so it’s 7 13/32"

        smart to pick a prime numerator!

        • dellish@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          Alternatively, the same measurement is 752.5mm / 4 = 188.1mm, to a practical number of significant figures. No convertions between feet and inches (or ridiculous fractions of inches), and only one calculation.

          • bloodfart@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            Yes but my measuring tape actually has 32nds on it. The meter side only has whole divisions, not tenth graduations.

            So the sae “ridiculous fraction” is a measurement I can easily make with tools I have on hand to the tools own limit of precision and double check in my head with five seconds of fifth grade level mathematics while the metric one can’t be actually measured without a set of calipers and honestly would merit long division or a calculator to double check and still needs rounding off a vile eighth of millimeter to hit what is in your own words “a practical number of significant figures”.

            Imma throw something out there and I hope the earnest admission that I can’t divide 752.5 by four in my head with the level of confidence required to cut materials by is enough to recognize it not as an attack but as a real grasp at understanding:

            People who make posts like yours either don’t measure things in any meaningful way (cutting, dividing, scribing lines, etc) or don’t know how to work with fractions.

            Like I said: it’s not an attack, I just can’t see how someone would suggest that the metric equivalent to 13/32 is easier to work with unless they didn’t intend to actually measure it or couldn’t do fractions.