What you call individualism, I call mob mentality! :lol:
Take that riposte!! :comeatmebro:
OK, so back to the way it worked in Britain. Because I really DON'T think that the carpentry argument makes any difference.
They did currency first, with a short implementation time. US doesn't need that one anyway.
From memory, the next legislation was for everything to be labelled with the metric equivalen, which actually meant labelling in both. And there were loads of exceptions, including everything where the conversion from Imperial to Metric wasn't straightforward or would lead to inaccuracies. Everything from fabric/carpeting/wood (widths were still Imperial), tools and things like nuts and bolts, spare parts, where both Imperial and Metric were on sale and insisting that the Imperial ones used metric sizes would have just been confusing, anything where precise measurement was necessary and conversion inaccuracies would have been a problem. Beer glasses where there would have been strong public resistance. At the same time, they were moving to education in metric.
Then they started to enforce selling of "loose" goods by metric measure. That took around 20 years, and beer is still an exception, as far as I know. It gave us the silly anomolies, like buying 48" fabric by the metre, but it did work.
So, early '70s until now, still incomplete but getting there. And industries that have old equipment or standards will still be using Imperial.
They did currency first, with a short implementation time. US doesn't need that one anyway.
From memory, the next legislation was for everything to be labelled with the metric equivalen, which actually meant labelling in both. And there were loads of exceptions, including everything where the conversion from Imperial to Metric wasn't straightforward or would lead to inaccuracies. Everything from fabric/carpeting/wood (widths were still Imperial), tools and things like nuts and bolts, spare parts, where both Imperial and Metric were on sale and insisting that the Imperial ones used metric sizes would have just been confusing, anything where precise measurement was necessary and conversion inaccuracies would have been a problem. Beer glasses where there would have been strong public resistance. At the same time, they were moving to education in metric.
Then they started to enforce selling of "loose" goods by metric measure. That took around 20 years, and beer is still an exception, as far as I know. It gave us the silly anomolies, like buying 48" fabric by the metre, but it did work.
So, early '70s until now, still incomplete but getting there. And industries that have old equipment or standards will still be using Imperial.
It's the enforcement side of things that doesn't work well in the US. Congress has the power to standardize weights and measures, but due to public opposition that results in Congressmen losing their jobs, has chosen not to use that power. Principled resistance (even though the principles were bad ones) to the French "new measures" prevented adoption in the 19th C. Manufacturers and trade unions defeated adoption in 1927. Use of the metric system in the US wasn't nationally legislated until 1975, and it resulted, not in any move toward compliance, but in open ridicule. Since 1988, the Federal government itself has used metric measures in defense and other industries, but not in highways or construction.
What persons not familiar with the US may not understand is the depth of actual opposition to the metric system. It's not just a neglect, it's not just inertia, it's open refusal.
The Worst Jobs in Science 2003 [Popular Science]
What persons not familiar with the US may not understand is the depth of actual opposition to the metric system. It's not just a neglect, it's not just inertia, it's open refusal.
The Worst Jobs in Science 2003 [Popular Science]
(right between Postdoc and Corpse-Flower Grower)
Last edited:
@Guy N'wah: This doesn't explain why such opposition could be overcome in England itself, but can't be in US. I think it's much more inertia than actual opposition in practice. And government inertia firstly (since they failed a few times, they lost interest to actively continue).
It does to a certain extent - British companies were less resistant to the change because it meant they would be selling the same products in both the EU and the UK., so even if they had initial set-up costs, their long-term costs would be lower. That pressure is presumably a lot less in the US.
I don't think the British raised organized opposition on the premise that the French system promoted atheism. No, there's a real "don't you force this on me" mentality. Underestimating the ability of Americans to refuse to be governed is dangerous.
But you're essentially right that the government effort to promote metric in the 70's was halfhearted, and it was killed off after the 1980 election.
It didn't help matters that there were two major screw-ups that followed changes to metric measure. One was the "Gimli Glider" incident (Canada, 1983) in which the conversion for litres to pounds was used for the fuel on board. Another was the Mars Climate Orbiter failure (1999) in which the orbital insertion thruster calculation was made in pound-seconds. The "Gimli Glider" and its passengers survived thanks to heroic airmanship. The MCO hit the Mars atmosphere, hard.
There's no halfway. Metrication must be done right, or not done. Lack of interest and outright opposition by the American public suggests that "not done" is all we will get in the near future.
Last edited:
@grregg: Alignment with the rest of the world measurement system (Si). More uniform usage (powers of ten instead of mixed measures like x12, x4, x3 etc.).
In case of temperature, Celsius is way more natural to use. 0 water freezing point 100 water boiling point. While Farenheit put 0 somewhere practically not useful.
In case of temperature, Celsius is way more natural to use. 0 water freezing point 100 water boiling point. While Farenheit put 0 somewhere practically not useful.
Last edited:
Well, I'm still a bit fuzzy on the advantages, especially when compared to the costs of the switch. I understand the aesthetic appeal of the uniform world order, but how does an average person benefit from it? My weather forecast is in F, while say Prague's is in C, so? How often do I really need to compare? And if I occasionally do compare, it's enough to type '23 celsius in F' into Google to get the conversion.
And somehow I don't see what's natural about 0 and 100 being tied to freezing and boiling water. 0F being pretty damn cold is perhaps less useful as 0C being the point when water freezes, but boiling? I switch the stove on and I don't really care what temperature is needed to boil water. And "more that 100F equals fever" has its uses.
The point of the above being that an average person uses measurements in a very basic way and the benefits of one system versus another are small. Whether my recipe says 30 grams or 1 oz, it doesn't matter, right? Might as well say "a spoonful". If I often converted recipes from my Mom's cookbook to use for a battalion of soldiers, metric might be useful, but it's not done that often. And if it were, I'd probably get pretty routine fast, the conversions are not that complicated.
And somehow I don't see what's natural about 0 and 100 being tied to freezing and boiling water. 0F being pretty damn cold is perhaps less useful as 0C being the point when water freezes, but boiling? I switch the stove on and I don't really care what temperature is needed to boil water. And "more that 100F equals fever" has its uses.
The point of the above being that an average person uses measurements in a very basic way and the benefits of one system versus another are small. Whether my recipe says 30 grams or 1 oz, it doesn't matter, right? Might as well say "a spoonful". If I often converted recipes from my Mom's cookbook to use for a battalion of soldiers, metric might be useful, but it's not done that often. And if it were, I'd probably get pretty routine fast, the conversions are not that complicated.
For most people like you, it would indeed not make a difference which system they use. Depends on what you do in your life ofcourse and in what way you need it. I for instance study physics and an accurate and universal way of doing measurements is pretty much required.
I'd say temperature wise, [0 - 100] when taken against water freezing and boiling points defines certain life condition range. Below and above that life is barely possible (it's not accidental, that boiling is a common method of disinfection). So there is a good natural basis for such scale. Fareheit on the other hand has no intuitive ranges, especially for 0.
Also, water freezing has a significant environmental impact. So when it says +1°, or -1° it means some significant difference in weather there. While if you see 33° and 31°, that doesn't catch the eye as much. So I'd say Celsius is more intuitive to use (even though where I live Fahrenheit is dominating).
Also, water freezing has a significant environmental impact. So when it says +1°, or -1° it means some significant difference in weather there. While if you see 33° and 31°, that doesn't catch the eye as much. So I'd say Celsius is more intuitive to use (even though where I live Fahrenheit is dominating).
Last edited:
@rohirrim
Exactly. If some needs Celsius (or any other system, I would think that physicists use Kelvin scale), let them. But for normal, everyday usage, one system is pretty much like any other.
@Gilrond,
Well, "life condition range" is perhaps useful to a doctor or an astrophysicist. On the other hand, 0-100F pretty much defines the temperatures that you'll find when going outside. Which for me is considerably more useful. I contemplate what clothes to put on way more often that I search for possible life (or bacterial contamination).
Exactly. If some needs Celsius (or any other system, I would think that physicists use Kelvin scale), let them. But for normal, everyday usage, one system is pretty much like any other.
@Gilrond,
Well, "life condition range" is perhaps useful to a doctor or an astrophysicist. On the other hand, 0-100F pretty much defines the temperatures that you'll find when going outside. Which for me is considerably more useful. I contemplate what clothes to put on way more often that I search for possible life (or bacterial contamination).
I don't find 0°-100°F to be as useful when going outside. Because as I said above (see update), water freezing has a significant meaning in that context. So I'd care to differentiate negative and positive temperature based on that point. While 32 is pretty much meaningless in that context.
Last edited:
Long ago, I had a girlfriend whose father was a physicist. He was adamant that weather reports should be given in Kelvin. Arguments that numbers describing ordinary human experience should be in a range easy for ordinary people to comprehend -- two digits and use most of the two-digit range -- were lost on him.
Fahrenheit's scale was a good historical example of how physicists who didn't have a standardized decimal system had to work. He started from a scale developed by Roemer, where zero was the temperature of ammonium chloride brine, and the boiling point of water at sea level was 60. To reduce the need for fractions, Fahrenheit multiplied through by 4. He then adjusted it so that ice water was 32 and external body temperature was 96, making them 64 degrees apart, a scale that is easy to scribe in powers of 2 alone. Others later refined it to the present 32-212 scale.
Other useful scales are:
Garrison Keillor's scale of Minnesota winter temperatures: one-, two-, and three-obscenity cold.
The weather in Sevilla: hace caló, hace musho caló, and ¡joé, que caló!
Fahrenheit's scale was a good historical example of how physicists who didn't have a standardized decimal system had to work. He started from a scale developed by Roemer, where zero was the temperature of ammonium chloride brine, and the boiling point of water at sea level was 60. To reduce the need for fractions, Fahrenheit multiplied through by 4. He then adjusted it so that ice water was 32 and external body temperature was 96, making them 64 degrees apart, a scale that is easy to scribe in powers of 2 alone. Others later refined it to the present 32-212 scale.
Other useful scales are:
Garrison Keillor's scale of Minnesota winter temperatures: one-, two-, and three-obscenity cold.
The weather in Sevilla: hace caló, hace musho caló, and ¡joé, que caló!
Last edited:
What's the deal with gigabyte (GB and gibibyte (GiB? 
Why measure in decimal vs binary values? I've read around, sure, but I want a meaty answer, and I know I can find on here :yes
Why measure in decimal vs binary values? I've read around, sure, but I want a meaty answer, and I know I can find on here :yes
GiB and GB aren't necessarily binary / decimal. Both can be binary when naming with IEC or JEDEC. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigabyte
The deal with binary is simple. Since devices (registers, memory, storage etc.) are usually aligned with the power of 2, it's easier to measure that way. So when you say GB you mean 2 ^ 30 bytes (1024 ^ 3). On the other hand, in some contexts it means 10 ^ 9 (in particular in network measurements like for bandwidth, i.e. when you see 1 Gb / s it means 1,000,000,000 bits / sec). Which can be pretty confusing.
The deal with binary is simple. Since devices (registers, memory, storage etc.) are usually aligned with the power of 2, it's easier to measure that way. So when you say GB you mean 2 ^ 30 bytes (1024 ^ 3). On the other hand, in some contexts it means 10 ^ 9 (in particular in network measurements like for bandwidth, i.e. when you see 1 Gb / s it means 1,000,000,000 bits / sec). Which can be pretty confusing.
Last edited:
Remember that, with few exceptions, computers work best in base 2. It is often easier in software, often necessary in hardware, and especially more efficient in older equipment to use a numbering system in which the quantities are powers of 2.What's the deal with gigabyte (GB and gibibyte (GiB?
Now there's a coincidence, call it happy or not as you prefer, that 10^3 = 1000 and 2^10 = 1024 are close to each other. So two not-quite-compatible systems of units have developed.
In the best writing, K, M, and G have their usual meaning of 10^3, 10^6, and 10^9. Ki, Mi, and Gi get the base-2-centric meaning of 2^10, 2^20, and 2^30. (In sloppy writing, writers use K, M, and G for both and rely on the reader to guess from context which is meant.) As Gilrond points out, it's customary to use decimal (K, M, G) for things like communication channels and binary (Ki, Mi, Gi) for storage.
Where this bytes (pun intended) consumers is in the way disk drives are sized. Disk drives are sized in gigabytes, but it is the decimal GB = 10^9 that is meant. So a 40GB drive has, nominally, 40,000,000,000 bytes capacity. Not, as you might expect if you were counting in binary GiB: 40GB is approx. 37.25 GiB.
But to make a usable disk out of that, you have filesystem overhead. Maybe 10% of the disk goes to that. Now your 40 GB disk looks like a 33.5 GiB disk, and consumers who aren't used to dealing in large numbers complain that they are getting shortchanged.
Last edited:
Very cool :thumbup: The "yard" and "meter" flourish in their own areas it seems.
The first time I used KDE dolphin read my 1TB in TiB and with the ext4 filesystem that left me ~916GiB. Thought I stepped into funky town.