1925
2023-08-09.jpg (lemmy.ml)
submitted 3 years ago* by to c/memes@lemmy.ml
339 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 3 years ago (1 child)

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (2 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    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_%28unit%29^

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago* (1 child)

    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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent