• @seitanic@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    51 year ago

    Metric isn’t intuitive to you because you aren’t used to using it. Relevant xkcd.

    Sure, feet might be intuitive, but that’s the exception. What’s an inch? Or a mile? Or a cup? Cups come in more sizes than feet do!

    • uralsolo [he/him]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      3
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      An inch it about the distance between the two knuckles on your forefinger.

      A mile is about one thousand steps, or fifteen minutes of travel at a brisk pace

      A cup is a cup, before portion sizes got daffy there was a pretty common cup that everybody had.

      “Standard” measurements were refined over thousands of years by actual artisans making actual crafts. Metric was designed by a bunch of rich French people and foisted on the rest of the world because it makes more sense on paper, regardless of how in practical use it requires you to break out a ton of awkward decimals and other contrivances to make it match the human experience.

      • @seitanic@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        71 year ago

        Read the xkcd comic. There are plenty of metric associations you can make in your mind, too.

        Metric was designed by a bunch of rich French people

        Metric came out of the French Revolution, which was caused by the underclasses rising up and overthrowing “a bunch of rich French people”. And then saying, “Hey, let’s try doing things rationally for a change. Like our systems of measurement.”

        • uralsolo [he/him]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Because the bourgeoisie that lead the French Revolution famously remained 100% in lockstep with the underclasses. There was never a moment where the needs of the rulers diverged from the needs of the masses and a whole new regime of class strife arose from it, no sir.

          The metric system was applied top-down to french society by its ruling class, it was not some grassroots attempt to make the world better.

          read the xkcd comic

          There’s nothing quite as intuitive as a table of numbers and associations that you can memorize by rote. Pass me my flash cards!

          • Galli [comrade/them]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            51 year ago

            Notice that despite the presence of many people who grew up with and use the metric system none are complaining about how hard it was to intuit metric units?

            If you stop telling people what they should find intuitive for a moment and actually listen to people telling you about their experiences then you might find that this is not an issue.

            • uralsolo [he/him]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              21 year ago

              As I said elsewhere anyone can get used to anything. I was also propagandized in school by teachers who insisted over and over for years that metric was better and that using anything else was a waste of time - it was only when I became an adult and started making shit for myself that I realized the truth.

          • Orcocracy [comrade/them]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            51 year ago

            I’m not sure if you should be arguing against the metric system because it was applied top-down across Europe by Napoleon, considering the history behind how the imperial system was spread to what is now the USA. I mean, it’s literally called the imperial system.

            • uralsolo [he/him]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              21 year ago

              The metric system was applied across the entire world and wiped out almost every single indigenous standard of measure that existed previously. The English unit of measures has a similar history vis a vis the British Empire spreading it, but my argument would be that indigenous measurements writ large should have been retained, not that they should have been wiped out once and for all by a second, even more imperial system.

      • snowe
        link
        fedilink
        41 year ago

        You missed the point of their comment. Those measurements make sense to you because you grew up with them. If you read the xkcd you can easily see how you can make up the same comparisons for metric

        • uralsolo [he/him]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 year ago

          I’m afraid you missed the point of mine. Anybody can “get used to” pretty much anything, but the difference between standard measurements and metric is that standard measurements are based on practical things that people interact with every day, while metric measurements were worked out on paper by the French bourgeoisie over a hundred years ago. They sought to use rationality to make a better measurement system, and in doing so made one that is totally untethered to the human experience.

          read the xkcd

          I’ve read the xkcd, the xkcd only responds to one common argument against the metric system, one which I am not making.

          • snowe
            link
            fedilink
            61 year ago

            I’m afraid you missed the point of mine.

            no, I didn’t. You still aren’t understanding even what you are saying, much less other people.

            standard measurements are based on practical things that people interact with every day

            no. no they are not. Let’s look at some ‘standard’ measurements as you call them (they’re actually not standard as you’ll immediately see):

            The foot was a common unit of measurement throughout Europe. It often differed in length not only from country to country but from city to city. Because the length of a foot changed between person to person, measurements were not even consistent between two people, often requiring an average. Henry I of England was attributed to passing the law that the foot was to be as long as a person’s own foot.

            Great. so we’re off to a perfect start. A foot is… as long as your own foot. https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot_(unit)

            Next up! Inch!

            Oh, well you might say “an inch is just a foot divided by 12”. nope. no it was not (all stuff in this comment is past measurements, because every unit of measurement on the planet uses metric as its base)

            The inch was originally defined as 3 barleycorns.

            Perfect. What’s a barleycorn’s length?

            As modern studies show, the actual length of a kernel of barley varies from as short as 0.16–0.28 in (4–7 mm) to as long as 0.47–0.59 in (12–15 mm) depending on the cultivar

            Oh ok, so it could be up to 3x the distance from one barleycorn to another. Perfect. Another ‘standard’

            https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barleycorn_(unit)

            How about the ‘rod’ or ‘pole’ or ‘perch’ (all the same thing) https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_(unit)

            In medieval times English ploughmen used a wooden stick with a pointed tip to spur or guide their oxen. The rod was the length of this stick.

            Great. So this one I have no visual reference at all. Is this pike length or sword length? (oh you’re all about referencing ‘standard’ objects, but just in case you don’t know a pike can be up to 25 feet long)

            Do you see how ridiculous this is? You’re talking about standards that evolved over time from some ‘base’ to mean absolutely nothing today in relation to what they were hundreds of years ago. Metric was also based on ‘standard’ things, like the kilogram, which is just the weight of a litre of water (see, simple). You’re acting like the ‘standards’ of one unit are superior to the ‘standards’ of another unit, except that the unit of measurement you’re saying is superior is completely disconnected from each other. If it wasn’t for standards bodies coming in and saying “a foot is not the length of your foot, it’s exactly this … long” then there would be absolutely no way to convert between any units in imperial measurement.

            • uralsolo [he/him]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              1
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Once again your argument has gone somewhat obliquely past mine and not actually addressed it, although I do appreciate how incredibly smug you are telling me I don’t know what my own argument is.

              I never said that standardization was bad, what I said was that the references for standard measures were more useful. We don’t carry around rods for poking oxen much anymore, so that unit of measure is rightly confined to history.

              You’re acting like the ‘standards’ of one unit are superior to the ‘standards’ of another unit

              yes-chad

              • snowe
                link
                fedilink
                11 year ago

                I never said that standardization was bad,

                I never said you did.

                what I said was that the references for standard measures were more useful. We don’t carry around rods for poking oxen much anymore, so that unit of measure is rightly confined to history.

                I just showed you exactly how that is not the case. A measurement saying a foot is as long as your own foot is completely useless in every context except the one where you do the measuring and never communicate it to anyone else. The same applies to literally every imperial unit. I also went on to show you that metric units were also based on standard measurements, like kilogram being exactly the weight of a litre of water. You conveniently ignored the fact that imperial was using weird standards while metric used useful, convertible standards. Please try converting 1cu ft of water to weight in imperial, with the ‘standard’ that it’s the length of your foot, not someone else’s foot.

                And please do stop referring to imperial units as ‘standard’ measures. That doesn’t mean what you think it does.