Yes, it's from a book called "Uncle John's Bathroom Reader" and that book was resting on a closed toilet seat in a nation that only kind of uses the metric system in certain situations... however, you'd be surprised how much you can learn after a single visit to any local fast-food joint!

top 87 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 102 points 1 month ago (11 children)

The paragraph on the meter should mention that their measuring error from the pole to the equator was .02%, which, without using satellites or even electricity, is fucking impressive.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    So how the hell was it done? Long piece of rope? Hot air balloon? Or having a bird fly from one point to another and timing it?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    Calculations. In 240 BCE, Eratosthenes used a stick. He basically found a place where the sun was directly overhead, and measured the shadow from a stick a known distance to the north of that location. He approximated the circumference of the earth to be 25,000 miles, which was off by 99 miles.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    How do we know the conversion of whatever length unit he was using, in modern units?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 26 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    It's so impressively thought out. I got my mind blown when the physics teacher told us that 1 calorie is the amount of energy it takes to heat 1cc by 1°C. Suddenly you realise that someone actually put some effort into this whole system

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago*

    The one that blew my mind the most was finding out that calories are calculated by setting the food on fire, and then measuring how much it can heat water. Calories are literally just a measurement of how well something burns.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 52 points 1 month ago (10 children)

    I think this snippet misrepresents the accuracy of the former definition of the metre. Sure, it's no longer the distance from the equator to the pole (the modern definition uses the speed of light and the period of transition for a particular atom), but the difference is quite small. The circumference of the Earth around the poles (so 4 times the distance from equator to pole) is 40007.863 km. In Napoleonic times scientists had a pretty good idea what the shape of the Earth was.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [+] [S] -15 points 1 month ago* (9 children)

    Earth squeezes and stretches and wobbles & rotates. Time as we know it changes in length because it is the common nature of "time" to become chaos which then becomes order. Hylomorphism or Impermanence is to Entropy as measurement is to the fundamentals of size. Who is to say that the distance between two points should be constrained to the barriers of human existence & understanding. All we have is pictures & words, maybe a few trinkets that will become dust that becomes something else that attempts to quantify reality.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 39 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    Earth squeezes and stretches and wobbles & rotates.

    Sort of, yeah, Earth is a bit wider around the equatorial axis than around the polar one.

    Time as we know it changes in length because it is the common nature of “time” to become chaos which then becomes order. Hylomorphism or Impermanence is to Entropy as measurement is to the fundamentals of size. Who is to say that the distance between two points should be constrained to the barriers of human existence & understanding. All we have is pictures & words, maybe a few trinkets that will become dust that becomes something else that attempts to quantify reality.

    This reads like an unfortunate confluence of psychosis, psychoactive substances and LLMs.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] [S] 6 points 1 month ago

    While I can't speak for my chemical imbalances, I can certainly assure you I am %100 not a fucking algorithm or some lame ass excuse for manufactured digital intelligence....

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] [S] -28 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    Sort of, yeah, Earth is a bit wider around the equatorial axis than around the polar one.

    Thanks for explaining that a fucking ball is easier to squeeze at it's widest part, genius.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    What are you talking about? That isn't what they said, and a ball doesn't have a widest point. That's more or less the definition of a ball.

    The distance between the two poles is smaller than the distance from one side to the other following the equator. The earth isn't quite a ball, it's a bit squashed because of way it spins

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] [S] -14 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Okay, a ball is equally wide but sometimes it gets squeezed and becomes tallish

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago*

    Since it seems like you're confused about the precise deformation of earth: the earth is wider around the equator. It's not being squished but, rather, being flung apart by its spinning on its axis, like spinning pizza dough. Gravity just keeps it the same shape.

    If you're interested, look up "geodesy"

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 18 points 1 month ago (8 children)

    Love me some Uncle John’s. I’d recognize that page number decorator anywhere!

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    Uncle John knows the correct way to mount toilet paper.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] [S] 3 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    I have two bathrooms and do both.

    The real question is; which do I use for my personal lou or WC or wash closet or bathroom or powder room or shitter?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 5 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    If you don't want to offend anyone, just leave the spool sitting upright on the lid

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 month ago*

    Uncle John's bathroom reader! I know this has nothing to do with the metric system, but I saw the toilet paper roll around the page number and got a surge of happy brain sauce due to the happy memories of all the copies I owned through the years: 2

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    The other fun thing is with the new calendar, they literslly reset the count to year 1. The coins for the first few years literally said "l'an 7" or "l'an 11".

    "We decide when history starts" is a hell of a sentiment.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago (1 child)
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago*

    It would have worked so well. 2 digit timestamp gives you 15 (old)minute accuracy which is just perfect for appointments and organizing your day. Digital minutes would be a bit longer than old minutes which is fine for bus/train times etc. Digital seconds a bit shorter than old seconds which is great for timing things. I always thought a second was a wee bit longer than it ought to be anyway.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    And the fact that Inch is not precisly defined. "Three grains of ..." or "King's thumb" is not a precise definition.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago

    Precise definition isn't really practically necessary. It's only useful if you need to independently recreate a system in isolation. It's much easier to have a reference material and just copy it. You can even build a reference length if you have something with known measurements.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 20 points 1 month ago

    Also, unlike the imperialist system it is not utter horseshite.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    I mean yeah, Metric scales.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] [S] -2 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    Everything can be scaled. 1 can be two halves & 3 can be 12 .025's. or we can all just agree that everything is based on various systems of measurement invented by humans who can hardly agree on their own origins and the purpose of their existence, or even the right to exist.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    I don't think anyone can in good conscience say that inches scale to small measurements. Sure, you can use them, but subtracting 8/1000 out of something that is 1 5/8 and noting the final length is just unwieldy.

    You don't need to get super existential about it, imperial was invented before we invented 0 and the decimal system and it shows. Sure the difference in basic units is irrelevant, no one cares what the meter or inch is defined as, the "superior" one is just what you're used to and have an intuition for. But having units that relate to each other in round ways and can be easilt rescaled to the precision/range required can be nothing but a benefit

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] -5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Measurement works because it's accepted on it's own terms.

    If I were to believe that 1 is 2, it would be very difficult to explain that 2 is indeed double the normal amount of 1.

    The same goes for some alien species that has too many or not enough fingers and doesn't use prime numbers because of this.

    I don't personally believe that math is truly universal. But maybe I'm being existential ;)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • I am genuinely interested in your take on how you believe the Peano Axioms could be shown to be false in this universe. They seem pretty darn universal, and have nothing to do with the number of fingers on your hand, or even how many dimensions you perceive.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago*

    Love me some uncle john's! Those page numbers are iconic, though I could immediately tell it was UJBR from the asterisks and writing style. Is this from "plunges into history"?

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago

    Heyyy I've got two of Uncle John's books on the commode right now!

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago

    I have this book, its great! Some funny bullshit in there

    Hmm... What We Did Before Smartphones. I should write a book so the Young's dont forget ye olden ways.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago

    Literally because it scaled

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    So we only know a kilogram of water weighs a kilogram because of an arbitrary decision by the French? How much does it really weigh?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    If we were to make a meter today, I would think it would be a fraction of the speed of light.

    And on that note, I honestly think a base 12 number system would be easier in the long run.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Coincidentally we accidentally got really close to 1/300 000 000th the speed of light in a vacuum. 299 792 458 m/s.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    Americans could at least have the decency to spell "metre" correctly, but no, they have to go and change the spelling of a measurement system they don't even use.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] [S] -4 points 1 month ago

    Well...at least most of them pronounce data as DAY-TUH because of Star Trek.

    The other pronunciation is horrendous.

    Speaking of which, aluminum is pronounced fwaganah-schreple.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago

    I use centimeters for certain things, but I call them "inches".

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    It bugs me so much that they used the decimeter to define the liter and kilogram instead of using a meter to define a liter and gram

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

    Square-Cube law was gonna fuck with that one way or another. A meter is a very human-oriented unit of measure -- but a cubic meter of water is a fuckton more than most people have to deal with in the normal course of business.

    And we're gonna call that one gram of water?

    One liter of water being 1000cc or one kilogram keeps the scales much more useful, imo. And personally, being essentially a sentient bag of water with a handful of other elements gluing it together...I appreciate that.

    Ultimately it's all the same, anyways. It's just a matter of the words we call them, the math works out the same, if we just give them different names. That's the point. Math is the constant. Assuming a space alien can understand Base10, we can explain the metric system in terms of universal constants that make sense in Base10.

    Unfortunately, all number systems are Base10...

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (9 children)

    In what context do people use metric units of length larger than a kilometer? 🤨

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    Kilo just means 1,000, a kilo meter is just 1,000 meters. That last point is simply stupid conjecture by the author, and unlike the metric system, isn't well thought out.

    You could measure things in kilo miles if you want...

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›