> the units don't matter. What matters is picking a system and sticking to it
That is exactly the problem with the imperial system. You have multiple units for the same thing, and when they are multiples of each other, it is in base 12.
You could settle on feet and have kilofeet and millifeet, and you'd have a sensible system (apart from being incompatible with the rest of the world).
> That is exactly the problem with the imperial system. You have multiple units for the same thing, and when they are multiples of each other, it is in base 12.
That's when you're lucky, can also be 3 (yard to feet), 22 (chain to yard), 10 (furlong to chain), 8 (miles to furlong, and that's why a mile is 5280 feet), 5 (gill to fluid ounce), 4 (acres to rod, gallons to quarts), 14 (stones to pounds) and probably everything in-between.
Imagine if we measured time using units of varying multiples. Every time a friend tells me "see you in two weeks", I'm like really? 2 times 7 times 24 times 60? Fucking asshole, do I look like a calculator?
It never gained much hold, probably for two reasons
- its units were too far off the customary units, hard to convert, and didn't fit into the neat 10^3 system. The other units (metres, kilograms) were close or easily convertible into what they replaced (ell and pound, both at approximately 0.5 metres/kilograms).
- the number of days in a year is set, so you never end up at a neatly decimal system with e.g. 10^3 days in a year (and even worse, it's a weird fraction leading to leap years and seconds)
Why is ^3 neat? 10 for the radix is standard all over the world now, except perhaps in IT where there's some competition from 16.
But 3 for digit groups isn't very standard. East Asia uses groups of 4, so 10,000 and 100 million are standard. India uses lakh and crore, i.e. the oddball groupings 3, 5, 7, etc.
Were time conversions as common or necessary as other unit conversions, you can bet your ass decimal time would have more takers.
Even so, varying units does restrict how we can express time. Even if someone tells you something as simple as "half a week", you have to ask for clarification. And while "a week from now" translates to a date, forget about "a month from now." That could mean half a dozen different things.
When someone tells me "half a kilometer" assuming they really mean 500m would usually be a dreadful mistake. It means "some uncertain distance you can probably walk". Decimal units don't magically make people more accurate.
When someone says "half a quart" who the fuck knows how much that is? I sure don't, and I'm American. Hell, even a regular quart throws me, all I have there is a vague notion that milk is sold in that amount. When someone says "half a liter" you can be sure they mean 500ml, and you can instantly know how much that is in any kitchen measuring device you have.
Suppose I am recounting a dish I made to someone over the phone in two realities, one with Imperial and the other with metric.
Imperial universe: "Okay, now add... say... a third of a gallon of milk" "...third of a gallon.. eehh.. half a pint of milk.
Metric universe: "Okay, now add... say... 2/3rds of a liter." "Two thirds of a liter... 666 ml it is then."
In the imperial universe poor conversations force two inaccurate estimations. In the metric universe only one of the parties is being dreadfully inaccurate.
Imperial is defined in terms of metric units, so it is possible to be as accurate in imperial. The difference between imperial and metric is that imperial adds mental overhead that in practice reduces accuracy.
One third quart = 2/3 cup. I have a 2/3 measuring cup in my kitchen.
I've never heard anyone say a third gallon, but just convert to ounces. 128 / 3 = 48. That's 3 pints, btw.
Of all the "math is hard" arguments, I think the kitchen measures are the least convincing. Everything is a power of two. You can halve or double a recipe without even thinking.
All of these conversations, even with special cases already marked on kitchen equipment, are all more complicated than the stupidly simple equivalents. Why in the world would you choose imperial over metric, unless you are just an old curmudgeon?
You can think the arguments for metric are weak (most of the world disagrees...), but the arguments against it are nonexistent.
(Dividing by two is just easy in a decimal numbering system as it is in a hybridized decimal system, so give me a break)
The cost of switching is non zero. I'm not bothered by metric, I can deal with it just fine. I'm just not bothered by standard units. I would never propose switching to standard from metric, but I just don't see what all the fuss is about.
Switching would be done in a lazy manner. I can't see how the cost would be prohibitive, plenty of other countries have managed it so surely America can too.
Does anybody use "hour" in anything other that whole multiples, halfs, and quarters? This divisiblity of 60 seems nothing more than a curiosity; minutes are used for everything else, even 3/4ths ("forty five minutes").
It's easy to get dismissive about having multiple units, until you run into the contexts where they really are useful. Following up the example in one of my other comments: adopt the meter and the kilometer, or the foot and the kilofoot, and it won't matter to navigators, because they'll still use the nautical mile unless you literally put a gun to their heads, and if you do put a gun to their heads they'll show you why it's a much more practical unit for what they do.
>they'll show you why it's a much more practical unit for what they do.
Why? Why is it more practical? How is it better other than being more familiar? It blows me away that people can make the argument as it being "better".
That is exactly the problem with the imperial system. You have multiple units for the same thing, and when they are multiples of each other, it is in base 12.
You could settle on feet and have kilofeet and millifeet, and you'd have a sensible system (apart from being incompatible with the rest of the world).