this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2023
1925 points (93.1% liked)

Memes

45754 readers
1585 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
1925
2023-08-09.jpg (lemmy.ml)
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by Samsy@lemmy.ml to c/memes@lemmy.ml
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] seitanic@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

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 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

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@hexbear.net 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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@hexbear.net 2 points 1 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@hexbear.net 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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@hexbear.net 2 points 1 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@programming.dev 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year 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.

[–] snowe@programming.dev 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] uralsolo@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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@programming.dev 1 points 1 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.

i'm not sure if i'm allowed to post PPB here so let's pretend I did and that you realized and admitted you're wrong.