• Diplomjodler@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 days ago

    But it’s really easy. Wanna know how many inches are in a mile? One inch is 0.0254 m. One mile is 1609.344 m. 1609.344 / 0.0254 is 63360. There.

    • drath@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 days ago

      I always assumed 1km = 0.6 miles because all all of the car guys yapping about 0-100 and 0-60. Good enough, tbh. Inch is 2.5cm, and there are 12 of them in a foot for some reason. Pint is slightly less than half a liter, pound is slightly less than half a kilo, and anyone mentioning stones gets stoned to death. Simple enough.

      • Treczoks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        4 days ago

        Just wait until you try to understand American cooking recipes. Cups everywhere! My favorite was “A cup of spinach”, without any mentioning if they were talking about fresh spinach (losely or densily packed) or cooked/frozen one.

      • XM34@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 days ago

        I always assume there’s absolutely no point in expending brain cells to store this information and therefore exclusively deal in metric. (Except for DnD for some reason, but that’s also about to change)

    • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      5 days ago

      Wanna know how many inches are in a mile?

      No. Nobody wants to know that. Nobody needs to know that.

      Nobody needs a measurement with a magnitude of a mile to the precision of an inch. And if they did, they’d either measure the whole length in inches or decimal miles, not some bullshit multiple-unit travesty.

      Ya’ll are solving a problem that never existed in the first place.

        • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          Show me.

          If I’m building a railroad, I’m going to need mm precision in laying sleepers and rail, sure. But I’m not particularly interested in km magnitude while I’m driving spikes.

          If I’m driving a train over that rail, I’m interested in km lengths, but I can tolerate several hundreds of meters of imprecision in those measurements. No need to convert to meters, let alone mm for that measurement.

          The closest I’ll come to needing both km magnitude and mm precision is in figuring out how much material to order.

          But, when I do that, what I will actually be converting isn’t length to length. I’ll be figuring out how many sleepers per km, how many rail segments per km, how many buckets of spikes per km. None of those will be simple metric unit conversions.

          • VoterFrog@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            4 days ago

            But, when I do that, what I will actually be converting isn’t length to length. I’ll be figuring out how many sleepers per km, how many rail segments per km, how many buckets of spikes per km. None of those will be simple metric unit conversions.

            This is actually the primary strength of imperial and the impetus behind most of its conversion ratios. Base 10 is just terrible for being divided. But if you have a mile of railroad, you can place your rail and stakes regularly at almost any foot-length and come out even.

            • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              4 days ago

              Exactly. Our base-ten number system is cursed. A base-twelve metric system would be gorgeous. Our existing clocks would already be metric.

              In addition to scaling by “10” (pronounced “ten”), current Metric Rulers commonly scale by 2 when going from centimeter to 1/2 centimeter markings, or by 5 when going from cm to 2mm markings, depending on the degree of precision required. Rarely do rulers actually scale from cm to 1mm. You typically need calipers to make measurements smaller than 2mm.

              With base-twelve, we’d still be able to scale by “10” (pronounced “twelve”), but we’d also be able to scale by 2, 3, 4, or 6.

              • antipiratgruppen@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 hour ago

                Rarely do rulers actually scale from cm to 1mm. You typically need calipers to make measurements smaller than 2mm.

                I’m pretty sure most rulers and measuring tapes I’ve ever seen had 1 mm markings.

                We’re talking rulers of typically 10-30 cm marked length and made of plastic or metal, and longer measuring tapes made of either flimsy metal (in a casing with a lock-button) or those softer textile tapes.

                The only exception I can think of, that has only 1 cm markings, is a wooden 1 m teachers’ ruler made for blackboard use. But you do you with the calipers.

      • joel_feila@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 days ago

        Well the main reason why the metric caught was there were many many mny versions of older systems in place. You may have heard a french inch was different then an English inch. But it was way more complex then just that.

        Even in a single country different industries could all use a gallon but have it be different. Need 39 yards of rope for your ship? Well is that paris or vince yards? Also better remember the currency conversion.

        Having one system was better since everyone could now agree on how long something was. This is also why metric time failed to catch on. Everyone agreed on days, weeks, years etc etc.

        • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          4 days ago

          Bingo. That’s the true advantage of the metric system: everyone uses it. Unit conversion is a highly overrated function.

          Metric time will only catch on if and when we adopt interplanetary travel and are no longer fundamentally tied to the rotation and revolution of a particular rock around a particular star.

    • Aljernon@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      5 days ago

      I’ve never wanted to know how many of any unit are in a mile. It’s just something I’ve never had reason to care about. So there’s 1000 meters in a kilometer. That’s just trivia to me. There’s no need to know that.