• pressanykeynow@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 days ago

      At first I thought that’s how Americans measure it - in San Franciscos. But given how “San Francisco” doesn’t sound like “One seven six oh” I’m not sure if they don’t.

      • antler@feddit.online
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 days ago

        Of course. I was trying to make something less useful than knowing the strides in a mile.

        • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 days ago

          Take heart. You can easily remember that a stride is 5’ 3 9/25” because that’s the height of the typical Roman soldier after adjustment for 15th century English agricultural tax methodology.

  • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 days ago

    All units of measure are abstract.

    I like metric because it’s structured around an abstract amount. Even something like Celsius is pretty abstract, because the freezing and boiling point of water changes depending on the atmospheric pressure. The measure of a second? Why is a second, 1 second long? Why is it 1/60th of 1/60th of 1/24th of a day? There’s other stuff based on seconds too, like Hertz, which is literally “cycles per second”

    I like to think about how abstract these things are, because if we were to ever try to communicate with a truly alien race, we couldn’t really use numbers, because their base numbering system would be different than ours, their symbols for numbers would be different, their entire understanding of math and how to calculate stuff could be wildly different, possibly because they understand things we do not. We couldn’t even say to them to communicate on a specific frequency of EM, because that frequency is based on Hertz, which is based on seconds, which is based on ??? IDFK (neither would they). We base everything we know on the world around us, and that’s entirely unique to earth. We make so many assumptions about how things are because we’ve only ever experienced life on this planet.

    The only thing that kind of makes sense is how many days of the year there are, because it’s based on solid science about our solar system. It’s still unique to earth, but at least it makes sense on a larger scale. Everything else? Who the hell knows. Why is a meter as long as it is? Who defined this? Why? What abstract Earth-based thing was this based on that other societies of individuals would have no point of reference to relate to?

    It’s wild we’ve made it this far, to be honest.

    Anyways, I kind of got sidetracked… I guess all I’m really trying to say is that metric makes more sense than whatever the USA is doing. Even if it’s just as abstract in its conception.

    • WolfLink@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 days ago

      their base numbering system would be different than ours, their symbols for numbers would be different, their entire understanding of math and how to calculate stuff could be wildly different

      The neat thing about math is it’s built upon universal truths that exist independently of how you describe them. 1+1=2 regardless of how you represent those numbers. Even among humans we have plenty of different ways of describing numbers.

      Also, the best thing about science is that physics works the way it does regardless of how you describe it. An atom of hydrogen will always have the same spectral peaks, regardless of what units you describe those peaks in.

      It’s these kinds of things we consider when trying to communicate with aliens. Take a look at:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_plaque

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyager_Golden_Record

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arecibo_message

      These messages will probably never be received, even if there is intelligent life out there. But if something intelligent does find these messages, they will probably determine they are artificial, and hopefully manage to decode some of it.

      • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 days ago

        See, this is all fascinating for me. I love this stuff.

        It’s also a good exercise in recognizing the assumptions we make every day. I’m trying to get to a point where I can articulate my thoughts and I don’t have to struggle through the curse of knowledge.

    • One of Many@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 days ago

      …which is based on seconds, which is based on ??? IDFK (neither would they)

      “The second, symbol s, is the SI unit of time. It is defined by taking the fixed numerical value of the caesium frequency, ΔνCs, the unperturbed ground-state hyperfine transition frequency of the caesium 133 atom, to be 9 192 631 770 when expressed in the unit Hz, which is equal to s−1.” https://www.bipm.org/en/si-base-units/second

      • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 days ago

        I don’t think that was the idea when the second was created.

        The solar rotation cycle is naturally divided into 365 rotations of Earth (give or take), each daily rotation was divided into 24 segments called hours, each hour was further divided into 60 units called minutes, and each minute was then further divided into 60 units which we call seconds.

        In the modern era, we have refined how we measure a second by a very stable natural phenomenon, the emissions of cesium (which we also refer to as an “atomic” clock). But we got there first by dividing one of Earth’s rotations by 86400. It just so happens that 9 192 631 770 oscillations from cesium also equals 1/86400th of one rotation of Earth.

        Additionally, neither a “second” nor even “one rotation of Earth” would have any meaning to someone who has never been to earth before.

        • Arcka@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 days ago

          It doesn’t matter how these units were originally defined. They have all been redefined as science progressed. As long as you relate the arbitrary unit to a constant it can be translated.

    • TheOakTree@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 days ago

      I think one useful comparison would be to convert their measurement of the speed of light to our measurement and vice versa. They will use different units of distance and time, but the values themselves will be proportional unless they live in a black hole.

    • toddestan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 days ago

      I’d assume that if we are ever communicating with aliens and trying to figure out each other’s way of expressing numbers and doing math, dimensionless constants like pi, Euler’s number (e), the fine structure constant, etc. will be important first steps. As you say, our units of measure are purely human inventions. But the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter is the same no matter what units you use to make the measurement.

  • kamen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 days ago

    The only positive thing I see about imperial is that things are easily divisible by 3 and 6, but that’s about it. Then again, if doing the same with metric, you’re usually fine rounding to the nearest millimetre, and if that isn’t accurate enough, it’s probably not supposed to be done by hand anyway.

    • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 days ago

      I’ve banged on about this at length before. I prefer woodworking in inches because I have to divide by 3 and 4 a lot more often than divide by 5. It turns out that the fractional inch system evolved alongside woodworking for a very long time and it solves a lot of the problems woodworkers actually face…as long as you’re not a European scraping in the dirt for something to feel superior about.

      • bryndos@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 days ago

        I do woodworking a bit too, but I normally just do the slanty ruler/tape trick to divide any straight parallel face into n equal lengths. I hate all forms of mental arithmetic; I also avoid measuring as much as possible too. Maybe that’s why everything i make is so shit.

        I guess if you’re mass producing things you can’t just manually mark off each and every part though - but even then I’d probably want to work to a template rather than to measure.

    • Peppycito@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 days ago

      It’s funny how the biggest argument for metric is that it’s so accurate but in real life use it degrades to “close enough”. My main problem with metric is that I can’t get my pencil that sharp.

      • BeardedBlaze@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 days ago

        Most standard measuring tapes have 1/16th of an inch as the smallest fraction on the tape. 1mm is 1/64th. Which is one is “close enough”? Lol

      • lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 days ago

        How is “accurate” an argument?? You can use any unit with any amount of decimal places. The argument is that it’s regular. You learn the prefixes once and apply them to length, volume, weight, …

      • kamen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 days ago

        It’s accurate when you need it to be and gets out of the way when you don’t. And if you do need the accuracy, you have a unit that doesn’t need fractions.

      • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 days ago

        The biggest argument for metric is that it’s consistent. It takes 1 calories to heat 1k of water by 1 degree. State something similar in imperial units.

      • Zagorath@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 days ago

        What are you even trying to say here? Yeah, in real-life use we use “close enough”. I don’t need to know that it’s 1,546 metres to the nearest supermarket. 1.5 km is close enough.

        But nobody is suggesting it because it’s “so accurate”. Any system can be accurate, depending on how many sig figs you use. The advantage of metric is on how easy it is to convert between different scales. Use millimetres, metres, or kilometres for the appropriate case, depending on the need you have for precision. And just move the decimal point if you decide you don’t need as much precision…or need more. In archaic measurements, you can’t do that. If you’ve got 342 feet and decide you actually only need to be accurate to the chain, you have to memorise the arbitrary number of 3 feet to a yard, and 22 yards to a chain, and divide 342 by those numbers, to arrive at 5.2 chains.

      • yermaw@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 days ago

        If an alien species has 12 fingers to our 10, would they work in base 12 as normally as we use 10s? Like would their whole system end (or start) with a 0 or equivalent and not end all different?

        My maths coherence is too high-school for this thinking, but now its in there.

        • Liz@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 days ago

          0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, A, B, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 1A, 1B, 20, 21, …, A0, A1, A3, …

          You can use your hands to count in base 12 if you want to, and some cultures have done so. Just use the segments on your fingers on one hand, using your thumb to count each segment.

          https://youtube.com/shorts/ThOuUa_iLnM

        • the_crotch@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 days ago

          The Babylonian number system was base 12, that’s why there are 24 hours in a day and 60 minutes in an hour. Afaik they had the normal number of fingers, they were just smarter about making their numbering system divisible.

            • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              10 days ago

              That gets you base 11, which is what we count on our fingers in now.

              They counted, at least for tallying, by putting their thumb on the three finger bones if the other four fingers on the hand. One hand can count to 12, and then you lift a finger in the other when starting over. That method gives you a count of 60’on your fingers. That’s why 12 and 60 still crop up all the time.

        • Marz157@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 days ago

          There’s really nothing special about base 10 numbering, it just feels natural to us. They probably would use base 12 and just have 2 extra symbols for the digits after 9. Example 10 x 10 = 100 in both base 10 and base 12 math. It’s just the translation of that in base 12 to base 10 looks like 12 × 12 = 144 to us.

      • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 days ago

        It’s not nonsense, just old and focused on priorities that don’t matter anymore. A mile was initially a thousand paces. So you send a group of people out, one counts each time their right foot takes a step and after a thousand times they build a mile marker. Bam, roman road system. 1000 strides per mile, 5 feet per stride.

        Later the English used the unit as part of their system of measurement, and built the furlong around it, which is the distance a man with an ox team and plow can plow before the ox need to rest. A mile is eight furlong. This got tied into surveying units, since plots of land were broken up into acres, or the amount of land an ox team can plow a day.
        When some unit reconciliation needed to be done, they couldn’t change the vitality of oxen, and changing the survey unit would cause tax havock, so they changed the size of a foot.

        All the units and their relationships were defined deliberately and intentionally. They just factored in priorities that we don’t care about anymore.

      • chaonaut@lemmy.4d2.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        10 days ago

        Because there’s a extra system of measurement change hiding in the middle. The Inches, Feet and Yards system (with the familiar 12:1 and 3:1 ratios we know and love), and Rods, Chains, Furlongs and Miles system. Their conversation rates are generally “nice”, with ratios of 4 rods : 1 chain, 10 chains : 1 furlong, and 8 furlongs : 1 mile.

        So where do we get 5,280 with prime factors of 2^5, 3, 5 and 11? Because a chain is 22 yards long. Why? Because somewhere along the line, inches, feet and yards went to a smaller standard, and the nice round 5 yards per rods became 5 and 1/2 yards per rod. Instead of a mile containing 4,800 feet (with quarters, twelfths and hundredths of miles all being nice round numbers of feet), it contained an extra 480 feet that were 1/11th smaller than the old feet.

      • bryndos@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 days ago

        I think a mile is specified in terms of ‘chains’ not really feet or yards. Feet and yards are meant for measuring smaller stuff, like the size of a foot, or a courtyard.

        The ‘chain’ was a specific surveyors tool for measuring larger land areas. I imagine defined to be a length of physical chain practically manageable by the surveyor - probably pre-dating optical / triangulation methods before lenses got cheap.

        I think an acre was then defined as 10 square chains or something.

        But go back in time far enough and different jurisdictions have different lengths of standard chain, so different miles and acres derived from it. But it doesn’t really matter because if you were buying land in Scotland, then you’d probably want to use a Scottish surveyor and his big long chain.

        The nautical mile is then a whole other kettle of fish.

  • betterdeadthanreddit@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 days ago

    Why not just keep it simple and use the 5.4 microseconds * speed of light approximation? People just love making things overly complicated.

  • Gustephan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 days ago

    Imagine being so close minded and bad at math that you can only think in base 10 and feel the constant need to degrade people who are good at math in different bases

    • Spezi@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 days ago

      What a weak argument. You shouldn’t have to be good at math to do basic calculations in daily life. Metric is much more accessible in this regard. Even if you lack math skills it is easy to understand.

      • Gustephan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 days ago

        Did you read the words I wrote? It looks like youre responding to a “imperial units are better than metric” strawman which you may notice I didnt say or even allude to

    • Bahnd Rollard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 days ago

      The feet to mile conversion is still in base-10… Its the ratios between the units that are seemingly arbitrary. Come on…

      • Gustephan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 days ago

        This comment brought to you by a complete and fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to use a different base numeral

        • Bahnd Rollard@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 days ago

          You dont write the number of feet in a mile as 14A0 (base-16 for this example).

          Your complaining about ratios used for unit conversion, not base numeral systems… Fuck, this feels like a slashdot comment.

          • Gustephan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            10 days ago

            You count up in incremental numbers until you reach 5280 and then finally increment from 0 to 1 miles. That’s base 5280. Just because we didnt invent more symbols to easily represent that does not mean its not a different numeric base.

  • CAVOK@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 days ago

    “In metric, one milliliter of water occupies one cubic centimeter, weighs one gram, and requires one calorie of energy to heat up by one degree centigrade—which is 1 percent of the difference between its freezing point and its boiling point. An amount of hydrogen weighing the same amount has exactly one mole of atoms in it. Whereas in the American system, the answer to ‘How much energy does it take to boil a room-temperature gallon of water?’ is ‘Go fuck yourself,’ because you can’t directly relate any of those quantities.” ― Josh Bazell, Wild Thing

    • Smeagol666@crazypeople.online
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 days ago

      I remember reading this quote a few years ago (probably Reddit), but I don’t remember if attribution was given. Kudos to you CAVOK.

    • Arcka@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 days ago

      It might be funny if it were true, but it’s just a sad show of ignorance. It is exactly as possible in one as in the other for obvious reasons. It’s just not as easy to memorize.

      To be specific:

      • energy required to heat to boiling point 1180 kJ
      • energy required to convert to vapor 8420 kJ
      • energy required to heat to boiling point and convert to vapor 9600 kJ
  • cheloxin@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 days ago

    I’ve never once had to convert miles to feet or vice versa in nearly 40 years (besides a couple test questions in school). It’s a total non issue in the whole SI vs US system debate

  • 74 183.84@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 days ago

    Ya know what. I like that tomato shit to remember the conversion. I like SI far more than US customary tho

  • smnwcj@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 days ago

    Metric will never recover from not being base-12. Ease of use and intuitiveness suddenly trumps “objective” design. We’d have metric time right now, smh.