Are you saying that you can estimate fractional lengths by eye better in imperial than in metric, or that using a fractional measuring device is more precise than using no device at all? Neither option seems like a good point tbh.

But let's entertain that since imperial is a fractional system it makes cutting fractions of foot-long boards easier. For 1/6 that's 2", very cool, mission accomplished, much superior than 16.7cm. But what if you need to cut 1/5 or 1/7? Now you need to work with 1/32" subdivisions while metric stays the same and allows you to keep working at however many decimal positions of accuracy the job requires. A 1/7m board can be 14.3cm if you're going to use it as timber (or even 14 for that matter), or 142.86mm if it's for aerospace applications. Unless I'm not allowed to use any measuring device, because reasons?

Fractions and bases don't relate to each other in the way you think they do

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] MyRumIsVodka@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (4 children)

Now go cut me a board 1/6m without a measuring device. Do it by eye. With a fractional system 1/6 of a foot is far easier to do.

You probably could do it if you grew up measuring things in centimetres and metres, instead of inches, elbows and feet.

In fact I'm often eyeballing ~10cm = 1/10m and ~20cm = 1/5m based on my hand*. If you asked me however "how many feet is this" I'd need to mentally convert "3ft = 1 m" to get any sensible answer.

You're confusing "it's more intuitive because I grew up with it" with "it's intrinsically more intuitive".

*10cm: from the tip of my middle finger to the knuckle. 20cm: between the tips of my thumb and pinkie, when the fingers are spread out the max.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] Bluewing@lemmy.world 1 point 1 day ago (3 children)

I'm perfectly happy and able to seamlessly shift between systems. You seem stuck at "Ugh, me sure me right and all else wrong!" attitude.

And you, by your examples, are STILL using a device to measure things because the metric system isn't that intuitive. You are using body parts that you have predetermined the approximate lengths of. I can tell a 4 year old child to cut a piece of paper in half and they intuitively understand about how much that is with no pre-measured body parts.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] MyRumIsVodka@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Perhaps switching perspectives a bit might help you to understand it?

I know rationally that 1lb ≃ 1/2 kg. But if you tell me "I bought 5 lb taters" I'm not picturing anything until I mentally convert "5 lb ≃ 2 1/2 kg, that's a lot". And if I don't do this mental conversion, "5 lb" means the same as "7 diddly-doodly" or "half a skwerl", nothing.

I also know, rationally, that 1 ft = 1/3 m. But if you told me "I'm 10 ft tall" I'd be like "okay... [small pause] wait, isn't this around 3.3m tall? That's bullshit, nobody is 3m tall".

From the above, following the exact same reasoning you've been trying to apply here, the conclusion is the opposite as yours: while the metric system would allow you to intuitively grasp how large/small things are, the imperial system doesn't. And if the same reasoning leads to contradictory conclusions then the reasoning is bullshit.

What would explain the above is the following:

any measurement system allows you to intuitively grasp how large/small things are, once you're used to it
You are not used to the metric system, even if trying to fool yourself with "I can seamlessly shift between systems".
I'm not used to the imperial system. But unlike you I can tell apart what's my own habits vs. what's from the system itself.

And really, this shit is like QWERTY keyboards. I'm happy with mine, and I can instinctively find the keys without looking. But that doesn't automatically stop QWERTY from being an awkward mess of a layout, and anyone arguing "QWERTY is more intuitive" is full of shit.

And you, by your examples, are STILL using a device to measure things because the metric system isn’t that intuitive.

Following this dumb "ackshyually your using a measurement device lol, you're hand lmao", you're also using a pair of measurement devices: your eyes.

But let's roll with it. The reason I still need to use a "device" has zero to do with the measurement system. It's profession; I'm no carpenter, my work never trained me to bat an eye at something and say "this should be twenty five large". This is not about the measurement system itself.

I can tell a 4 year old child to cut a piece of paper in half and they intuitively understand about how much that is with no pre-measured body parts.

A 4yo can do the same with metric.

You're confusing "fractions vs. decimal" with "imperial vs. metric", and making a fool of yourself.

Dunno if you noticed, but I actually used fractions with the metric system in this very comment. The reason people don't do this too often is because fractions are awkward to add and subtract, and you're giving up unit conversions. But you can. Half a kilo, a third of a metre, it's fine.

In the meantime, if you were to seriously use decimals with the imperial system, you'd reinvent the metric system poorly. "This is 3.62ft large... okay, it's 362 centifeet".

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Bluewing@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago (1 child)

I spent years as toolmaker. Measuring things was my life. I still have tools and whole machines scattered across thing planet. So yes, I'm incredibly comfortable with both systems. G20/G21 after all. The difference between my and you is I don't consider any measurement system to be intuitively better than another. I use whatever system is either asked for or required for the job at hand.

I could not afford be as parochial or narrow minded as you seem to be if I wanted to make a living.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] MyRumIsVodka@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 1 day ago

The difference between my and you is I don’t consider any measurement system to be intuitively better than another. [implied: "you consider it."]

Don't be disingenuous.

I did not say "metric is intuitively better than imperial", like you're implying there. I said "any measurement system allows you to intuitively grasp how large/small things are, once you’re used to it".

The benefits of metric are elsewhere, already extensively mentioned across this thread. (Namely: trivial unit conversion.)

You, though, you are bullshitting imperial would be more intuitive. What you're saying is basically "I grew up with imperial, I use imperial in my work and outside work, and sometimes I use metric in my work. This means I'm used to both! And if I can eyeball things in one but not the other, this means one is intrinsically more intuitive than the other!". Yes, it's that dumb.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] OriginEnergySux@lemmy.world [S] 4 points 3 days ago (1 child)

I don't understand what you just said, and I don't care to respond

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] restingOface 2 points 3 days ago

Plate or platter?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] TheYojimbo@lemmy.world 8 points 3 days ago (7 children)

You mean 16.7cm ?

And why a 6th ? Why not a 5th, or a 7th ? Your argument is not the flex you think.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 7 child comments

[–] gedaliyah@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago (1 child)

Maybe me and five friends want to split a fruit by the foot.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] TheYojimbo@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

Now THAT is a flex. You have 5 friends ? In this economy ?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] Deme@sopuli.xyz 3 points 3 days ago

I think it's worth adding that while no system can avoid difficult divisions, we use the same base-ten numerals everywhere so metric only has to deal with the limitations of base-ten. Using a unit system with a different base, but then having base-ten numbers to count those sounds like it defeats the purpose. If we counted in base-twelve, then that would be a different matter.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] Bluewing@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago (3 children)

So that took a calculator to do didn't it. It was not an intuitive calculation you could easily and quickly do in your head was it.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] TheYojimbo@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (2 children)

First, no it didn't. It's not that hard.

Second, it works because they chose 6, but do it with 5, then it's "easier" in base 10, do it with 7 and you're back to decimals either way.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Bluewing@lemmy.world 1 point 1 day ago (1 child)

So who decided base10 is correct? Why be limited to just 3 factors of then when you could have 4 with base12? More factors more better. And don't give me the "10 fingers" thing. If you count the knuckles on your fingers, (ignore the thumb), you will discover there are 12 of them. A natural Base12 just like counting whole fingers.

More than one civilization has done base12. And I believe there are still one or two Pacific Island cultures still using base12 to this day.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] TheYojimbo@lemmy.world 1 point 1 day ago

So who decided base10 is correct ?

idk, not me. I don't really care either. I just responded because I think the 1/6 argument is cherry picked, and to me it's not even base10 vs base12 argument, that's your hill to die on, while still counting base12 in base10 (because in base12 12 is 10 but I'm sure you know already)

I just don't like this weird "gotcha" in favor of imperial system, I think it's dumb.

But keep on fighting for base12 brother, it seems to matter a lot to you.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent