You said the metric system has tons of great subdivision which is objectively false. Prefixes in the metric system only multiply by 10, which by definition does not and cannot add additional sub-divisions. The point is that while the metric system is a useful system of measurement in very limited situations, the biggest advocates for it have no idea why they like it, and are ignorant of it’s deficiency’s.
Let’s try to raise the discourse a bit. Divisors are absolutely the most important part of a human-centric numeric and unit system, and the metric system, being a base 10 system, absolutely sucks at that.
Metric system:
Hey, we use hectares sometimes, which are hm^2
2,5 and 10 is “Tons”?
The world is flat, birds aren’t real, and there are only three prefixes in the metric system. You get it.
All the prefixes are just base ten though, so who cares? They don’t add more subdivisions.
If you’re trying to make a point, I missed it.
You said the metric system has tons of great subdivision which is objectively false. Prefixes in the metric system only multiply by 10, which by definition does not and cannot add additional sub-divisions. The point is that while the metric system is a useful system of measurement in very limited situations, the biggest advocates for it have no idea why they like it, and are ignorant of it’s deficiency’s.
Let’s try to raise the discourse a bit. Divisors are absolutely the most important part of a human-centric numeric and unit system, and the metric system, being a base 10 system, absolutely sucks at that.
Elaborate on how it’s “objectively false” that there are plenty of subdivisions, especially lots of subdivisions that aren’t frequently used.
This should be good.
10 has 2 divisors, or “subdivisions,” that is not “plenty” that is 2. Thus it is false, objectively, to claim that 2 and 5 are “plenty.”
Lololol if that were the question, there would only be one unit. Fortunately, the question is actually “how many times can you divide a unit by ten”
Thanks for playing.