• Iron Lynx@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    8 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
      7
      ·
      8 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
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      8 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

  • s_s@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Everything in America except building trades has transitioned to metric already.

    Even our imperial units are defined in metric.

    But… PLEASE don’t tell our citizens. It will all be fine as long as we don’t tell them!

    • groats_survivor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      This is exactly my experience. I’ve worked for four different manufacturing companies in the Midwest. Three of them were multi billion dollar companies. All four of those companies used metric almost exclusively.

      Such a stupid misconception that is constantly reposted

  • sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    8 months ago

    I have to agree 100%. The slavish devotion of small brained regressive idiots to base 12 time keeping has bugged me for fucking ever. Swatch solved this decades ago, but people are too stuck in their “But this is what we’ve always used” bullshit mindset.

    • exocrinous@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      8 months ago

      Fuck your decimal system. Dozenal is the most intuitive number system. Arithmetic is so much easier to learn in dozenal and you can even count higher on your hands if you use phalanges instead of fingers. Base 10 is a crap number system. It’s barely composite, it only has two prime factors.

      • greyw0lv@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        8 months ago

        Use binary. You can count super high on your fingers, arithmetic is as easy as it gets. Binary is the best number system.

        • exocrinous@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          8 months ago

          Nah, readability is low and you can’t divide by three OR five easily. Binary has even fewer prime factors than decimal.

    • TheRealKuni@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      Base 12 is better than base 10. In an alternate universe we use it for everything and it’s a utopia. There is world peace and no one is hungry.

      12 is evenly divisible by 2, 3, 4, and 6. 10 is only evenly divisible by 2 and 5.

      (Fun fact, Tetris in that alternate universe doesn’t have the stupid Z and S Tetronimos. People are happy there.)

    • 8adger@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      8 months ago

      But if isn’t.

      • start by putting metric units next to the SAE units in the labels
      • Eventually people get used to the units and then you phase out the use of them.

      All science and most of the mechanical engineering is done in metric already. If you have a car made in the last 20 years ask the fasteners are already metric. So it really isn’t that hard…

      • Jyek@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        8 months ago

        We already do that. Looking at a bottle of tea I drank earlier today and it says 16FL OZ (473mL) both units are labeled on most things.

      • Marcumas@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        Ford still uses SAE bolts/screws for door panels, but not always.I only keep metric sockets and wrenches in my box, but have to keep a 1/4" socket just for the random Ford I have to work on.

    • Iron Lynx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      With that attitude it will be. Just because it’s a hassle does not mean it’s not worth doing.

  • dan1101@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    8 months ago

    I really like Farenheit system for temperatures. 0 is really cold and 100 is really hot, but both survivable. It’s a human-centric system.

    0C is the temperature that water freezes, which is good but temperatures more often go negative with that system. 100C is boiling so you’d be dead.

    • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      8 months ago

      What’s so special about the 0 - 100 range? For either system, there’s temperatures that have significance.

      -20 C is getting dangerously cold (wear all winter gear available if you must be outside for anything longer than brief durations).

      -10 C is very cold (winter coat, gloves, hat).

      0 C is freezing (winter coat necessary, gloves and hat optional).

      10 C is chilly (winter coat unzipped, or jacket and sweater).

      20 C is comfortable (t-shirt and pants).

      22 C is about room temperature (shorts become viable above this).

      30 C is hot (nude comfortable; minimize clothing).

      40 C is getting dangerously hot (depending on humidity and personal heat tolerance) (clothing that protects from heat might be more desirable than minimising clothing).

      • Revonult@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        F has finer whole number resolution for temperatures typically experienced by humans. Obviously C can be represented by decimals, but I tend to think whole numbers are clearer.

        Personally I use C and metric for all my scientific work and F for representing outside temperature.

        Edit: Phrasing

        • Xavienth@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          I honestly can’t say I need resolution finer than Celsius for air temperature. So many other factors have such bigger effects on the perceived temperature (humidity, UV index, if the sun is shining, wind speed, etc) that a granularity of 1°F doesn’t make sense to me.

          Pool temperature, on the other hand, yeah, 1°F or 0.5°C resolution is perceptible.

        • TheRealKuni@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          I responded a few posts higher with more detail about this, but after teaching myself Celsius I actually prefer the lower resolution. A change of degree Celsius has more meaning than a change of degree Fahrenheit. (Also many, though not all, weather sources are using the Celsius values anyway and then converting and rounding them to Fahrenheit, so you don’t really get the benefit of that granularity.)

    • TheRealKuni@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      I really like Farenheit system for temperatures. 0 is really cold and 100 is really hot, but both survivable. It’s a human-centric system.

      I used to make this argument, that Fahrenheit made more sense for weather, but I decided to be (somewhat) scientific about it and test the hypothesis (with a sample size of 1).

      So I switched everything I own over to Celsius and set about teaching myself.

      This was back in 2019, and here I am still using Celsius 5 years later. I like it a lot more than Fahrenheit.

      A couple of major reasons: first, you don’t actually need the precision Fahrenheit gives you for weather. The difference between 68°F and 69°F is so small that degrees Fahrenheit have very little meaning. It was startling to me how quickly I came to understand the differences between degrees Celsius because they have a lower resolution. And of course you can always use half degrees if you need to, but honestly it’s fine without.

      What I realized is that, very often, the temperatures that you see on weather reports or apps are really just the Celsius degree values converted and rounded. For example, you’re far more likely to see 68°F or 70°F rather than 69°F, since 20°C=68°F and 21°C=69.8°F. This isn’t true for every weather source, but it was still interesting.

      But more importantly, 0 is freezing.

      This never seemed like it mattered when I was using Fahrenheit. I know 32°F is freezing, if it’s below that it’s gonna be snowing instead of raining. But the first winter I experienced in Celsius was eye-opening.

      I realized that temperatures below freezing in Fahrenheit never really meant much to me. This is sort of hard to explain, but while I knew they were progressively colder there wasn’t much specific understanding. That is, 23°F doesn’t really mean anything to me.

      But -5°C? That instinctively meant something to me the very first time I experienced it in Celsius. That’s going to be as far below freezing as 5°C is above freezing. No math involved. Simple. Valuable. Obviously you can do the math to figure the same thing out in Fahrenheit, but with Celsius you don’t need to.

      Once you get to know the numbers, it’s just as good as an other system of measurement, and I find I like it more for the weather than I like Fahrenheit.

  • guyrocket@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    8 months ago

    I’ve read that it is more easily divisible than metric.

    Divide a meter by 3 or 4 and get ugly numbers but a foot or yard divide by 3 or 4 quite cleanly. And so on.

    Depending on your application this can be very helpful.

    • Aussiemandeus@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Divide a metre by 4 and you get 0.25 meters or 25cm

      Dived a foot by 4 you get 3 inches.

      Dived a yard by 4 you get 9inches

      Metric here wins in my opinion.

      Now let’s go by 3

      1m by 3 is yes 33.3r not great but 1m is 100cm and that’s how it is.

      1ft by 3 is 4 inches. Sure looks great now.

      Except size resolution is far greater in metric in simple forms

      Every inch is 2.54 cm obviously they dont round up nicely.

      Once we have to go smaller than an inch we need 15/16s of a inch, smaller then a cm we drop down to mm.

      10mm makes a cm.

      In super practical terms i need a spanner, 16mm is to big, i get the 15 next.

      5/8 is to big what do i get next?

      (I know the answer)

      Also another argument is well whats if you need half a mm etc we just use 0.5m or 0.7mm etc

      Very small sizes for most everyone day to day.

      Sure it’s not great breaking it too 0.whatever, but metric does it so much smaller as imperial made that jump to incorporate a size smaller then an inch.

      1/4 inch is just 0.25 inches

        • guyrocket@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          8 months ago

          I think this is it. The 5 factors instead of 3.

          I also think there was something to do with fractions of an inch too. Like that divisibility was also an advantage of imperial.

    • Zerush@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      Division no is the problem in one unit, inch, feet, etc, because use fraccions instead of decimls, but the problem is the conversion from inch, feet to others (yards, miles), which is the source of a lot of errors, like those from the Mars probes or some catastrophigs breaks of bridges in the past, apart of some problems in physics, because using for weught and mass the same unit. No, imperial are not human measures, never has been since humans count with 10 fingers.

      • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        8 months ago

        Nothing against metric, but base-10 is a complete train wreck of a numbering system. Mathematics in general, and geometry in particular, are gorgeous and elegant in base 12.

        • Midnitte@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          Are you even a mathematician if you don’t calculate using the sexagesimal system?

            • Jesus_666@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              And also ells, rods, cubits, paces, furlongs, oxgangs, lots, batmans… all with subtly different regional definitions (with regions sometimes as small as one village).

              People used loosely defined measurements based on things like their own body parts or how much land they guessed their ox could plow on an average day. Things like mathematical convenience or precision were not all that important; being able to measure (or estimate) without tools was.

  • frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    8 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
      23
      ·
      edit-2
      8 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
        13
        ·
        8 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.

          • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            8 months ago

            2/3 is not a valid fraction of inches.

            Valid denominators are 2, 4, 8, 16, or 32. Technically, 64, 128, and 256 are also acceptable, but they are never actually used. For precision greater than 1/32nd, we switch to thousandths, or tenths of thousandths.

            3/8 + 5/16 is 11/16ths.

          • toffi@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            8 months ago

            ~3.2mm. I can’t think of any real world application which needs fraction of a millimeter which doesn’t include ah calculator and some damn exact measuring tools.

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

            Quick off the top of your head, why would I use fractions of a cm instead of mm? It’s a workaround for a shit system

            • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              8 months ago

              Well I’m building a table right now, and it was pretty easy to choose a size for a mortise and tenon in my 3/4" stock, a third of 3/4" is 1/4". If I wanted half its width, that’s 3/8". Mental math is a lot easier than “What’s a third of 19mm.” In the wood shop, I rarely have to divide things by five or ten. I have to divide things by two, three and four a lot.

              • Shareni@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                8 months ago

                I rarely have to divide things by five or ten. I have to divide things by two, three and four a lot.

                I don’t know anything about carpentry, so I’ll take your word on it.

                My best guess is that the standards are different. For example 2cm stock instead of 1.9. Then only the 1/3 is problematic.

                • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  I’m building a shaker table out of white oak. I milled all my stock to 3/4" thickness.

                  Just today, I resawed a board to 3/8", or half its original thickness. I glued two boards together to make 3/2" (1 1/2") thick table legs, and I cut mortises 1/3 the thickness of the stock, or a nice even 1/4".

                  I’m familiar with the metric system, I learned chemistry and physics in metric. I prefer woodworking in fractional inches because metric seems like a bigger pain in the ass

              • rutellthesinful@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                edit-2
                8 months ago

                okay then my answer to the hypothetical is 9.5/3, which is every bit as easy to find on any measurement device, or to use for any practical purpose, as 1/24th

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

                  Well I’m not the person who initially asked you that, I’m just someone who recognizes how easy it is to work with fractions.

                  Also I have a ruler with 1/12s graduations and while it’s not 24ths, my neighbor has one marked like that.

                  E: my drafting ruler has a short 24ths scale

      • frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        8 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.

    • Beemo Dinosaurierfuß@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      8 months ago

      I am willing to bet that you are simply more used to the imperial system.

      I am not convinced that it has any objective advantage over the metric system.

      My foot is about 50% larger than my SO’s, but I can perfectly invision 30cm whenever I want or need to.

      • frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Cooking too. Try baking a cake in the two.

        Pounds-and-ounces is all like “two eights is sixteen”, “three threes is nine”. Nice and handy multiples is what it’s made on.

        I’m about equally familiar with the two.

    • MossyHabitat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      8 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.

    • Dude, WTF are you talking about? When I was a machinist it was so much easier to deal with metric. 1 inch ~ 25 mm, from there it is just way easier to deal with measurements such as 27.5 mm instead of 1 5/64 inches and all of these inverse powers of 2. I was always jealous of the French machinist I worked with talking about how the only units you should ever have to work with is meters and millimeters. If you are concerned about “Human Scale” then intuitively a meter and a yard are close enough for estimates and you don’t have to deal with “wait, what is 5/8 + 3/16 + 1 7/64?”

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

        “wait, what is 5/8 + 3/16 + 1 7/64?”

        Those are so easily commensurable! It’s 1 and 59/64 obv.

        It’s set up to make this easy.

        Let me ask: do you think people have usedit for hundreds of years for no reason?

        • Paradoxvoid@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          Those are so easily commensurable! It’s 1 and 59/64 obv.

          I legit can’t tell if this is sarcasm.

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

            “wait, what is 5/8 + 3/16 + 1 7/64?”

            In binary it’s 0.101 + 0.0011 + 1.000111, or laid out vertically:

            0.101
            0.0011
            1.000111
            =
            1.111011
            

            Halving numbers is no harder than decimating them, probably easier for most of us. Even computer scientists don’t think of base-10 as The Way The Truth and The Light; they use base-2 or base-16 for various things.

            Decimal/base-ten is fine as a convention, but insisting that One Convention is perfect and others are heretical is stupid.

            • Paradoxvoid@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              8 months ago

              You do you, but if you’re reverting to binary to explain how simple it is to add values together, I think you’ve made a wrong turn somewhere.

              • frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                halving is a really easy mental operation; we do it all the time mentally and with physical things like bits of food or drink or folding a piece of paper

        • MeowZedong@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          8 months ago

          Let me ask you something in return: do you think you can’t use fractions with metric? If you prefer fractions, that’s fine, but you haven’t justified why it’s better to use a system of measurement based on vibes.

          1/4" = 0.25" 1/4mm = 0.25mm

    • silliewous@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      8 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
        2
        ·
        8 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
          5
          ·
          8 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.

    • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      I like imperial for big things. like you said it’s easier. For small things like 3d printing and such I prefer metric (basically anything with increments smaller than 1/16"). It just depends on what scale you need to work on.

    • dellish@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 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
        8 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
          ·
          8 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
            ·
            8 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.

  • MossyHabitat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    8 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.

    • MeowZedong@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 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?

      • MossyHabitat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 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.

  • BigMoe@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    8 months ago

    I’m terrified of driving the day they move the US from miles to kilometers. People go well over the speed limit as it is. I can only imagine how many people would read the kilometer per hour speed limit as miles.

  • stillwater@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    8 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.

    • frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      There are 8000 linguistic systems in use today, about 90 calendars, a few hundred legal systems, a few hundred monetary systems, but Redditors fume at the thought that Planet Earth uses >1 convention for weights and distances