top 98 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 171 points 2 months ago (8 children)

Damn, that Mercator projection making A4 look almost as big as Greenland...

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 40 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    Remember Africa is about three times larger than Canada

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 59 points 2 months ago* (12 children)

    Not a meme; I am an American and I think this would be the exact right kind of petty bullshit to respond with, please push for this, Canadians. It is exactly this kind of petty, stupid bullshit that Trump participates in and responds most to.

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago

    American style petty bullshit isn't going to accomplish anything. This kind of thing costs Canadians and doesn't impact the US at all. This is the exact kind of petty bullshit Trump does regularly since it's popular with Americans.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (9 children)

    British Columbia basically did a similar thing by declaring permanent daylight savings time because, according to the premier, they're no longer going to wait for the US to move as well before moving themselves.

    Except now the situation is objectively worse than it was before, because BC is geographically in the UTC-8 zone, but permanent Pacific Daylight Time is the same as permanent Mountain Standard Time (UTC-7). Except they don't call it Mountain Standard Time in BC, they stubbornly continue to insist they're in the UTC-8 zone. Except they don't call it "Pacific Daylight Time" either, they call it just "Pacific Time". No "Daylight". Despite the fact that their standard time is what the rest of North America calls Mountain Time.

    They had four good choices, and chose none of them:

    • UTC-8 year round, call it "Pacific Standard Time"
    • UTC-7 year round, call it "Mountain Standard Time"
    • UTC-8 or UTC-7 year round, call it "Western Canada Time".

    Decent idea, rubbish execution.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    Why call it anything? UTC-7 or -8 are explicit, less confusing internationally & shorter

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

    Because UTC-7 and UTC-8 are also wrong. The label "Pacific Time" means, in the United States and Mexico, the civil time standard that observes standard time at UTC-8 and daylight saving time at UTC-7. You cannot call this standard merely "UTC-8" because then it's wrong half of the year.

    It is important to note that by calling year-round UTC-7 "Pacific Time", British Columbia and Yukon are the ones stepping out of the programme to do something idiosyncratic. The rest of the Pacific Time Zone (Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Nevada, California, and Baja California) has a greater population than the entirety of Canada. There are approximately 56 million residents of the non-Canadian portion of the Pacific Time Zone, where standard time is UTC-8, compared to 5 million in the Canadian portion, which is UTC-7.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago*

    No that's what I mean, once you have a fixed timezone there is no need for naming that timezone anything at all, it can be referred to by its UTC offset

    It's something that regularly gets under my skin when people announce events like this:

    extensive list of times with timezones such as PDT, EDT, BST etc. for a single event

    Instead of all of this, a single UTC offset would be so much clearer

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    They probably just saved some paperwork. Anyway, all people care were the time zone difference, not name

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (3 children)

    The name causes confusion. Let me give you this example. What time UTC would "17:00 PT" be?

    That question depends now not only on what time of year it is, but also where. "Pacific Time" now no longer uniquely identifies a single timekeeping scheme.

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

    What I understood was PT is UTC-7, PDT is UTC-7 and PST is UTC-8, am I right? I am guessing in Canada you all were refering to PST and PDT as 'pacific time' and that causes confusion?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    "Pacific Time" means "whatever the civil time is in the Pacific Time Zone, accounting for daylight saving time". So that would be 23:04 (UTC-7) as of writing.

    If today's date were instead 30 December, "Pacific Time" would be 22:04 (UTC-8) in Washington, Oregon, and California, while it would be 23:04 (UTC-7) in British Columbia and Yukon. Both would be called "Pacific Time" despite not being the same time, and both being on standard time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    Ah right, got it.

    Weird not to have any coordination at all. Another example I found - CST can simultaneously mean Central Standard Time (North America), China Standard Time, or Cuba Standard Time.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 40 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    I'm American and have worked in corporate offices all my life and grew up around the printing industry.

    A4/SI is super common here too. "Letter" is just something used by home users. But very often A4 is sold as "Letter A4" right next to the other paper.

    Now "legal" print format is a true abomination and unfortunately is much less likely to be easily replaced.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 38 points 2 months ago* (1 child)

    Lots of legal documents in the US are required to be filed in 216mm × 356mm (sometimes 330mm, both are considered standard and fit where necessary), everything from court orders to congressional acts and those stupid executive orders the orange fascist loves to sign about anything that he manages to think about for more then 2 minutes.

    But the bigger problem is that the size is also standardized on the storage and processing side, so switching sizes means we would have to change all the governmental filing cabinets, folders, folios, binders, etc too, which is slightly less likely than us finally adopting the metric system.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 31 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Surprised that many countries use the US version

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 74 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (42 children)

    Oh, let's also remember that A4 is a member of beautiful variant of an "SI system for paper". Want a paper the size of an A4 folded double? We have A85. Want something that folds perfectly to A4? A3. One more fold? A2.

    • Statement: "I want a piece of paper that I can fold twice to get exactly a US letter size."
    • Response: "You must be crazy."

    Edit: Did a fat-fingering

  • source
  • hideshow 42 child comments
  • [–] 40 points 2 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    Yes, I did a typy-type with chubby morning fingers

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    A85?! That's gotta be minuscule!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    with A4's divide-by-two shtick an A85 might unironically have a surface area of only like a couple atoms. it's too late in the night for me to calculate this so i pass this task onto someone else

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 months ago* (1 child)

    So, A0 has an area of 1 m^2^ and it's halved for each next one in the series, giving A85 a surface area of 1/(2^85^) m^2^ = 2.585×10^-26^ m^2^ = 0.02585 pm^2^.

    The smallest atom is the hydrogen atom with a Van der Waals radius of 120 pm which gives it a surface area of 4×π×120^2^ pm^2^ = 180956 pm^2^ or just over 7 million times larger than the A85.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 28 points 2 months ago (15 children)

    What on earth are you on about with those numbers? 😅

    A0 is the base size, with an area of one square meter. Fold that in half and you get A1. Fold that in half and you get A2, and so on. Regular printer paper is A4. You’ll rarely, if ever, see sizes smaller than A6.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 2 months ago* (2 children)

    I fat-fingered the A5, otherwise the numbers were right?

    I'm aware how the system works, I just wrote about it using A4 as the "base". A3 is what you fold to get A4, A2 folds to give A3, etc.

    I didn't know A0 was exactly 1m^2^ though, TIL!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

    Want something that folds perfectly to A4? A3. One more fold? A2.

    This made it sound like you meant that folding an A3 sheet twice gives A2 😅 Might just be my reading comprehension, though!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago*

    Nah, your reading comprehension is just fine, I just worded myself in a pretty verbal way. I totally get how it could be misread, I was thinking along the "salesman making a pitch" line:

    "Want something that folds perfectly to A4? A3. Want an extra fold before you get there? We have A2!"

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    The print shop I worked at did everything at size C1, but they were a blueprint shop

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (7 children)

    I was hoping that there was a metric baseline for this paper size, but it still bugs me that the dimensions aren't "even". 297mm? That's no better than 8 1/2 inches.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    There is, but A4 isn't the baseline, A0 is.

    A0 is 1m² with a ratio of 1:√2. Cut that in half along the larger side and you have A1, half it again and you have A2, etc. on down the line.

    The entire series maintains the same exact ratio down to A13 at 9mmx13mm.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    So ridiculously dedicated to metric that they didn't think to make A0 an exponent of 2, and then designed an entire system around dividing it by 2.

    A0 should've been 1.024 meters.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 2 months ago

    You’d still get «weird» lengths in the other dimension, though. Remember, the aspect ratio has to be 1 to the root of 2 for the folding in half to work.

    Also, I don’t think 1024 would have been such an obvious number back in the late 1700’s, when this system was first thought up 😅

    There is a system of sizes where the shortest side of the base size is exactly 1 meter, though: the B system. The aspect ratio is the same as for the A sizes.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 2 months ago

    I see what you’re saying, but the «weird» dimensions are what makes the whole thing with folding in half to get the next size work:

    The aspect ratio has to be 1 to the root of 2 for it to work, and that’s going to make some dimensions «uneven». The utility of that system is worth it many times over!

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    They do have a paper that can fold once to get a US letter though; i am only posting about it because i only learned about it two years ago: 11x17, aka, "tabloid" size.

    Some desktop printers can even print on it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    does all this A paper standerd business have to do with the fact that you can't fold any paper in half more than 8 times?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago

    american sizes do the same thing, just only five steps in ANSI sizes, and not really that well known outside of the industries that use the paper sizes, such as printing shops.

    smallest being u.s. letter (A4 equivalent) is "ANSI A", 8.5x11in...

    largest being the full sheet (A0 equivalent) is "ANSI E", 34x44in...

    with the expected three steps between for B, C, and D.

    going smaller than u.s. letter and ANSI A.. letter halved (4.25x5.5in) 'half letter' is a common notepad and post card size; and halved again (2.12x2.75in) is a common label size.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    There is 11"×17", it's called Ledger paper.

    This doesn't make the american system okay.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    ? Ledger paper has to do with the green lines, not the size

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    The aspect ratio of the A series of paper is √2, so every doubling or halving of the size retains the same aspect ratio. If you want to save paper and print at half size, you can just do that and it works flawlessly. However doing it this way means very unmemorable decimal unit dimensions.

    Half letter and tabloid are much taller than letter so you have to either have overly large margins on the top and bottom, or you have to reformat your document if you ever want to change the sizes.

    Though specialty paper suppliers do sell 22x17 paper if you really want to double fold to get letter paper. 11x17 is twice the width of letter which works for printing bifold books in letter size. Its just the scaling aspect ratio thing. Sizes in multiples for bookmaking do exist in both systems.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    What's the next step up after A0?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    2A0, and next 4A0, but there are rarely used. From A0 you mostly print from rolls, so you define the width. Large offset printing presses use formats that allow multiple A sized pages, either single or double for binding, and the needed trims.j

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 2 months ago* (6 children)

    The A standard is not as perfect as you might think. Because the paper manufacturers round that perfect root 2 down to a whole integer in size every time, there is accumulated error in every size.

    You might not notice a millimeter or two on an A1, but as the size of the paper gets smaller, the error gets bigger because of the rounding.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 2 months ago (17 children)

    Canada should drive on the left to really stick it to the yanks.

  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago* (13 children)

    Why would that upset New Englanders only? Pretty sure this would upset every American, not just the Yanks.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (4 children)

    Hardly...

    Yanks, Sox, Cubs, A's, 'Stros...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    I genuinely have no idea what you're talking about yank

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    Hehe. Nope, you're all yanks mate, Australia has you pegged too.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    I'm pretty sure it would upset all North Americans, not just the yanks. Dropping US bs doesn't need to mean picking up UK bs

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

    Oh, we would never call someone from Canada or Mexico a Yank. That would be inaccurate and offensive.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›