Petition to make USA Metric

[Svnla]

When I did travel oversea, there were some different/problems:

1. They use period (.) for our comma (,) in number. For example: US = $10,000 ==> $10.000

2. They use last name then first name. For example: US = John Larry Smith ==> Smith Larry John.

3. They use the date, then month, then year. For example: US = 3/14/2013 ==> 14/3/2013.

On a personal note, as a person who have experience with both metric and imperial, I like metric better because you just have to divide or multiple instead of having to remember how many *xx* is in "xx". Easier to remember.

 

[Red Squirrel]

DERRRRRP.

Your earlier statement: "you're not in a position to start pulling out a calculator and figure out if 43/24" is bigger or smaller than 3/5" etc."

If you don't know if 43/24 is bigger or smaller than 3/5 I can't help you. Further, if you don't know why this should be one of the easiest comparisons relating to division then perhaps you need a refresher of numerators and denominators. Hint: The numerator of the first example is LARGER than the denominator.

How about that whole metric is more accurate bullshit? Care to explain how that is even possible or are we just going to sweep that under the rug?

Ok that was a bad example I just made some numbers out of no where, let's say 27/35. By just looking at it there's no way of knowing how big of a number that is or how big or small it is compared to say, 3/4. You need to factor or do w/e it is to make it smaller (have been out of school for a long time so I don't remember any of this stuff). then convert to decimal to get a real life value (ex: you want to measure it with a measuring tape) Meanwhile with metric the number is already there for you. You can't say that's not simpler. Why have to deal with fractions and crap when you can just go straight to the final number. You should not need to be a math genius just to measure something. Work smart, not hard. Give me the real numbers, not this fraction crap.


And this is why metric is more accurate:



If you needed to reproduce that in a program or on paper, you'd use metric because of the smaller increments, and the fact that the small lines are actually in a proper base 10 format that can directly translate to a number that can be inputted in a computer. For example in this case I'd have my scale set to mm so I would input that size as 112mm. With inches, you can't just go 4.5 or w/e because the lines arn't even base 10. So that adds a whole layer of complexity for no reason at all.

 

[Murloc]

Just out of curiosity, how do you order lumber in metric countries.

If I go the the lumber yard looking to by some 8' 2x4s, and some 4'x8' plywood, what do I ask for?

I've never bought wood but internet shows that it's indicated like this: 150x300mm
mm or cm depending on the shop.
The standard sizes are probably different from american ones, everyone likes easy to remember numbers.

 

[lxskllr]

Or... you could just answer the question.

What question's that? Why architects don't use decimals of an inch for large construction? You really need to ask that? Then no one will know what anyone's saying. There's nothing that measures that in the field, and it's difficult to translate it back to a fraction which is used. Yea, there's a lot of retarded gymnastics people can go through to get something that works, or they can use a known standard that easily works with math, and can be bought at Home Depot for field use. You tell me which is the better method.

 

[nehalem256]

Ok that was a bad example I just made some numbers out of no where, let's say 27/35. By just looking at it there's no way of knowing how big of a number that is or how big or small it is compared to say, 3/4. You need to factor or do w/e it is to make it smaller (have been out of school for a long time so I don't remember any of this stuff). then convert to decimal to get a real life value (ex: you want to measure it with a measuring tape) Meanwhile with metric the number is already there for you. You can't say that's not simpler. Why have to deal with fractions and crap when you can just go straight to the final number. You should not need to be a math genius just to measure something. Work smart, not hard. Give me the real numbers, not this fraction crap.


And this is why metric is more accurate:



If you needed to reproduce that in a program or on paper, you'd use metric because of the smaller increments, and the fact that the small lines are actually in a proper base 10 format that can directly translate to a number that can be inputted in a computer. For example in this case I'd have my scale set to mm so I would input that size as 112mm. With inches, you can't just go 5.5 or w/e because the lines arn't even base 10. So that adds a whole layer of complexity for no reason at all.

I think you need to look at your picture again

In fact you can even go 5.25 or 5.125 etc in the Imperial system. Try measuring 5.25cm in metric

 

[skimple]

Rough-sawn lumber is still actual dimensions (2"x4" etc.), but you don't want to handle it, regardless of whether its metric or imperial. Tears your hands up. Built a boathouse roof with it one time. Ugh.

I suspect that you would still have a problem with lumber when its measured in metric since rough-sawn and finished are different dimensions for the same piece of wood. How do you metric folks differentiate?

Construction in the imperial system is actually quite elegant. Framing studs are 16" O.C., which yields 3 studs every 4'. Framing walls are 8' tall, which makes the 2:1 ratio of height to width very easy to work with for a 4'x8' piece of plywood or drywall. Also ends up with a nice finished height for a ceiling.

If I wanted to do it in metric, I couldn't use round numbers - like a 2 meter height (too short for a normal room) or a 3 meter height (too tall/wasteful for a normal room). You would have to use 2.4m framing. Then your plywood would have to be 1.2m x 2.4m, with studs every .4m.

I really don't see any inherent advantage in metric over imperial, or the other way around.

 

[Red Squirrel]

I've never bought wood but internet shows that it's indicated like this: 150x300mm
mm or cm depending on the shop.
The standard sizes are probably different from american ones, everyone likes easy to remember numbers.

Here it's actually still imperial for lumber. You can get plywood in 4' x 8', dimensional lumber comes in 8' and other sizes, though I have also seen some use metric. For this, I'm just used to it, but when I'm actively building something, I always go with cm/mm. It's easier to input that into a computer program and it's easier to measure on the fly when building. I only use imperial for stuff where I'm going by an established standard, like studs need to be 16" apart etc. Honestly I would not be opposed to it going fully metric, but either way really does not matter. Imperial is fine for stuff where you don't have to get super precise, but if I'm measuring something to reproduce something in the same size, give me a base 10 system any day.

 

[Red Squirrel]

I think you need to look at your picture again

In fact you can even go 5.25 or 5.125 etc in the Imperial system. Try measuring 5.25cm in metric

Oh my bad meant 4, I was not actually looking at the pic when I posted. But see that's what I mean, I can see how you came up with 5.25 as the second shorter line is quarters, but coming up with 5.125 would take much more thinking and take longer than coming up with the decimal value when the line you're at is the number you're at. 2nd line? well it's .2. I just find that's so much simpler, and allows for better accuracy.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

oops dp...

:awe:

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Ok that was a bad example I just made some numbers out of no where, let's say 27/35. By just looking at it there's no way of knowing how big of a number that is or how big or small it is compared to say, 3/4. You need to factor or do w/e it is to make it smaller (have been out of school for a long time so I don't remember any of this stuff). then convert to decimal to get a real life value (ex: you want to measure it with a measuring tape) Meanwhile with metric the number is already there for you. You can't say that's not simpler. Why have to deal with fractions and crap when you can just go straight to the final number. You should not need to be a math genius just to measure something. Work smart, not hard. Give me the real numbers, not this fraction crap.


And this is why metric is more accurate:



If you needed to reproduce that in a program or on paper, you'd use metric because of the smaller increments, and the fact that the small lines are actually in a proper base 10 format that can directly translate to a number that can be inputted in a computer. For example in this case I'd have my scale set to mm so I would input that size as 112mm. With inches, you can't just go 4.5 or w/e because the lines arn't even base 10. So that adds a whole layer of complexity for no reason at all.

But these go to eleven, i.e. you're an idiot.

With inches, you can't just go 4.5 or w/e because the lines arn't even base 10.

Just wow.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Oh my bad meant 4, I was not actually looking at the pic when I posted. But see that's what I mean, I can see how you came up with 5.25 as the second shorter line is quarters, but coming up with 5.125 would take much more thinking and take longer than coming up with the decimal value when the line you're at is the number you're at. 2nd line? well it's .2. I just find that's so much simpler, and allows for better accuracy.

Amazingly, companies that offer DIY building materials have found away around this by using fractions rather than decimals. You will not find anything in amateur construction equipment or materials that talks about "5.125 inches." It's 5 and 1/8 inches." That's how rulers are set up, so that's how building materials have adapted. And it works just fine.

Honestly, some of you people take this way too seriously. You're all ready to kick the shit out of each other because someone had the audacity to praise a unit of measurement that you don't use? What's wrong with you?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Scaling up a food recipe.

If I ever scale up a recipe and it says "1 TBSP" and I need 4 times as much, I'm just going to measure out 4 TBSP with the same measure; I'm not switching over to my cup measure. I mean, OK, if I'm scaling up a recipe by a factor of 40 or whatever, that would get exhausting, but that's a situation that's literally never come up, so I don't concern myself with remembering it, knowing that Google is there to help me should a need arise.

 

[lxskllr]

Honestly, some of you people take this way too seriously. You're all ready to kick the shit out of each other because someone had the audacity to praise a unit of measurement that you don't use? What's wrong with you?

I actually don't use metric that often. My main experience is with decimal feet, but the limitations of that system become apparent after a short while, and it would be nice to be on the same page as everyone else you're dealing with. Metric is a clear win for usability, precision, and widespread tools.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I actually don't use metric that often. My main experience is with decimal feet, but the limitations of that system become apparent after a short while, and it would be nice to be on the same page as everyone else you're dealing with. Metric is a clear win for usability, precision, and widespread tools.

OK, great. It's also never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever going to become the standard in America. None of our homes or infrastructure was built using metric, so the transition would be unimaginably expensive. And the people don't want it, regardless of the cost. It's political suicide to even suggest switching to metric because people are set in their ways (as evidenced in this thread). So who gives two flipping shits if it's "better?" What we have now seems to be working just fine, and it's not going to change. Enjoy your metric system.

 

[diesbudt]

Um, no it doesn't.

<------- Engineer

I concurr

<---- Also an Engineer

 

[Howard]

If I ever scale up a recipe and it says "1 TBSP" and I need 4 times as much, I'm just going to measure out 4 TBSP with the same measure; I'm not switching over to my cup measure. I mean, OK, if I'm scaling up a recipe by a factor of 40 or whatever, that would get exhausting, but that's a situation that's literally never come up, so I don't concern myself with remembering it, knowing that Google is there to help me should a need arise.

A guy like DrPizza would probably have encountered this several times. He does pizza parties as I recall.

 

[Joepublic2]

Why is the Metric system so much better? Why not binary?

Seriously, why is some system based on 10's so much better? Because people can't do math?

Probably already answered 100 times, but it's because 10 isn't a power of two, and people find base 10 most intuitive because when we're young we start counting with our fingers, of which we have 10. If we had 16 fingers we'd be using hex, two fingers binary, eight fingers octal etc.

8 bits to a byte
1024 bytes to a kilobyte [or] 8192 bits to a kilobyte
1024 kilobytes to a megabyte [or] 1,048,576 bytes to a megabyte [or] 8,388,608 bits to a megabyte


I think the Imperial system is doing just fine, relatively speaking

Completely different situation, those are all powers of 2, not random arbitrary divisions like 1760 yards to a mile.

 

[Daedalus685]

When I did travel oversea, there were some different/problems:

1. They use period (.) for our comma (,) in number. For example: US = $10,000 ==> $10.000

2. They use last name then first name. For example: US = John Larry Smith ==> Smith Larry John.

3. They use the date, then month, then year. For example: US = 3/14/2013 ==> 14/3/2013.

On a personal note, as a person who have experience with both metric and imperial, I like metric better because you just have to divide or multiple instead of having to remember how many *xx* is in "xx". Easier to remember.

#3 is the single most annoying part of dealing with US customers.

ISO date format (I think its iso 8601) is YEAR-MO-DA, in descending order of significance. I've never ever understood why anyone would want to have the day in the middle thereby losing the "bigger number is always farther in the future" benefit of descending order. (not that I have to sort lists that only recognize the number anymore) It is a huge pet peeve of mine though, either write out the words or use the standard.

 

[diesbudt]

OK, great. It's also never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever going to become the standard in America. None of our homes or infrastructure was built using metric, so the transition would be unimaginably expensive. And the people don't want it, regardless of the cost. It's political suicide to even suggest switching to metric because people are set in their ways (as evidenced in this thread). So who gives two flipping shits if it's "better?" What we have now seems to be working just fine, and it's not going to change. Enjoy your metric system.

Plus. We are 'merica.

Either follow our ways. Or get out of our way.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

#3 is the single most annoying part of dealing with US customers.

ISO date format (I think its iso 8601) is YEAR-MO-DA, in descending order of significance. I've never ever understood why anyone would want to have the day in the middle thereby losing the "bigger number is always farther in the future" benefit of descending order. (not that I have to sort lists that only recognize the number anymore) It is a huge pet peeve of mine though, either write out the words or use the standard.

It stems from how you speak it: March 14th, 1983. No one says 1983, March 14th, or 14th March, 1983.

 

[WelshBloke]

It stems from how you speak it: March 14th, 1983. No one says 1983, March 14th, or 14th March, 1983.

I say that last one all the time.

 

[Jeff7]

<-- Engineer, who prefers to start working on Imperial unit jobs by converting the available data to metric, and then go on my way with that pleasant system of units.

The Apollo computers stored the data in metric units.

So imperial vs. metric is apparently right up there with tipping threads as grade A troll bait.

Dollars and cents.
Cents.
Centimeters.
Divisible by 10.

The metric infiltration continues. We must divide the dollar up into something else, preferably with 197 pieces, just because it's a prime number.

...
Honestly, some of you people take this way too seriously. You're all ready to kick the shit out of each other because someone had the audacity to praise a unit of measurement that you don't use? What's wrong with you?

It's simple necessity.

 

[IronWing]

Dollars and cents.
Cents.
Centimeters.
Divisible by 10.

I guess you've offered your 2 bits.

 

[who?]

What's called 2X4 is really 1.5X3.5.

 

[lxskllr]

I guess you've offered your 2 bits.

Damned inflation.