Hey what ever happened to Metrification?

[Fmr. Emperor PiT]

It's sold in pints, though there will be a litre measurement on the bottle as well.

     Isn't a pint close to a half-litre, though?

[True Federalist]

It's sold in pints, though there will be a litre measurement on the bottle as well.

     Isn't a pint close to a half-litre, though?

US and Imperial pints aren't the same size.  The imperial pint is 20% bigger than the US (wet) pint.

473.176473 mL = US wet pint
550.6104713575 mL = US dry pint
568.26125 mL = Imperial pint

[Vasall des Midas]

Yes, measuring height using the metric system is pretty difficult, same for shoe size. Europeans seem to love doing it, but it's really the only time I don't use the metric system.

While a hypothetical size 0 (European scale) shoe would actually have a length of 0 millimeters, the system is not metric.

The base mass unit was always intended to be the kilogram, so you might wonder why they didn't give it a name of its own.  They did, the grave, named after gravité, but the name was judged too similar to a title of nobility, so they axed the name, but kept the gram which had originated as a alternate name for the milligrave to be used with small quantities.  (Volume also had two base units, the litre and the stere which was equal to a kilolitre and expected to be used for such things as firewood, ore, or timber.)

Of course, neither problem exists in spoken language as noone calls kilograms anything but "Kilos". And people who deal with large quantities regularly measure them in "Kubik" (short for cubic metre, which is of course the same as a kilolitre. A litre being, technically, a cubic decimetre.)

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

I really don't see why the metric system is so inherently superior in non-scientific use. That implies that when someone drive from one city to another they care about what fraction of the Earth's circumference they are driving.

In non-scientific use, it doesn't really matter.

[True Federalist]

I really don't see why the metric system is so inherently superior in non-scientific use. That implies that when someone drive from one city to another they care about what fraction of the Earth's circumference they are driving.

In non-scientific use, it doesn't really matter.

The main advantage/disadvantage of the metric system is its consistent use of base 10 arithmetic.  (Usually an advantage, but not when you want to divide something by a multiple of 3 which is fairly common.  It's one reason why time remained with base 60 for the fractions of the hour.)

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

I really don't see why the metric system is so inherently superior in non-scientific use. That implies that when someone drive from one city to another they care about what fraction of the Earth's circumference they are driving.

In non-scientific use, it doesn't really matter.

The main advantage/disadvantage of the metric system is its consistent use of base 10 arithmetic.  (Usually an advantage, but not when you want to divide something by a multiple of 3 which is fairly common.  It's one reason why time remained with base 60 for the fractions of the hour.)

For most daily stuff it doesn't matter - although it'd put an end to having to remember ounces to cups and pints and gallons conversions.  Other than that, there's not a huge amount of benefit either way in terms of length or speed for non-scientific purposes.  It doesn't matter if you measure yourself in centemeters or inches, and it doesn't matter if you measure speed in kmh or mph.

Although, metric-using meteorologists get a bit more leniency.  They're still given a couple degrees to be off before people start criticizing them, which turns into about 4 degrees in Farenheit.

[Fmr. Emperor PiT]

I really don't see why the metric system is so inherently superior in non-scientific use. That implies that when someone drive from one city to another they care about what fraction of the Earth's circumference they are driving.

In non-scientific use, it doesn't really matter.

The main advantage/disadvantage of the metric system is its consistent use of base 10 arithmetic.  (Usually an advantage, but not when you want to divide something by a multiple of 3 which is fairly common.  It's one reason why time remained with base 60 for the fractions of the hour.)

For most daily stuff it doesn't matter - although it'd put an end to having to remember ounces to cups and pints and gallons conversions.  Other than that, there's not a huge amount of benefit either way in terms of length or speed for non-scientific purposes.  It doesn't matter if you measure yourself in centemeters or inches, and it doesn't matter if you measure speed in kmh or mph.

Although, metric-using meteorologists get a bit more leniency.  They're still given a couple degrees to be off before people start criticizing them, which turns into about 4 degrees in Farenheit.

     TBH, I never got the deal about the different degree sizes. You can't really tell a difference of one degree in either scale anyway.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

I really don't see why the metric system is so inherently superior in non-scientific use. That implies that when someone drive from one city to another they care about what fraction of the Earth's circumference they are driving.

In non-scientific use, it doesn't really matter.

The main advantage/disadvantage of the metric system is its consistent use of base 10 arithmetic.  (Usually an advantage, but not when you want to divide something by a multiple of 3 which is fairly common.  It's one reason why time remained with base 60 for the fractions of the hour.)

For most daily stuff it doesn't matter - although it'd put an end to having to remember ounces to cups and pints and gallons conversions.  Other than that, there's not a huge amount of benefit either way in terms of length or speed for non-scientific purposes.  It doesn't matter if you measure yourself in centemeters or inches, and it doesn't matter if you measure speed in kmh or mph.

Although, metric-using meteorologists get a bit more leniency.  They're still given a couple degrees to be off before people start criticizing them, which turns into about 4 degrees in Farenheit.

     TBH, I never got the deal about the different degree sizes. You can't really tell a difference of one degree in either scale anyway.

What do you mean "the deal about the different degree sizes"?

[Fmr. Emperor PiT]

I really don't see why the metric system is so inherently superior in non-scientific use. That implies that when someone drive from one city to another they care about what fraction of the Earth's circumference they are driving.

In non-scientific use, it doesn't really matter.

The main advantage/disadvantage of the metric system is its consistent use of base 10 arithmetic.  (Usually an advantage, but not when you want to divide something by a multiple of 3 which is fairly common.  It's one reason why time remained with base 60 for the fractions of the hour.)

For most daily stuff it doesn't matter - although it'd put an end to having to remember ounces to cups and pints and gallons conversions.  Other than that, there's not a huge amount of benefit either way in terms of length or speed for non-scientific purposes.  It doesn't matter if you measure yourself in centemeters or inches, and it doesn't matter if you measure speed in kmh or mph.

Although, metric-using meteorologists get a bit more leniency.  They're still given a couple degrees to be off before people start criticizing them, which turns into about 4 degrees in Farenheit.

     TBH, I never got the deal about the different degree sizes. You can't really tell a difference of one degree in either scale anyway.

What do you mean "the deal about the different degree sizes"?

     I mean, folks talk about how the smaller degree size in Fahrenheit is more convenient (like Ernest earlier in this thread). Except, one degree makes no difference either way. So it doesn't really matter.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

I really don't see why the metric system is so inherently superior in non-scientific use. That implies that when someone drive from one city to another they care about what fraction of the Earth's circumference they are driving.

In non-scientific use, it doesn't really matter.

The main advantage/disadvantage of the metric system is its consistent use of base 10 arithmetic.  (Usually an advantage, but not when you want to divide something by a multiple of 3 which is fairly common.  It's one reason why time remained with base 60 for the fractions of the hour.)

For most daily stuff it doesn't matter - although it'd put an end to having to remember ounces to cups and pints and gallons conversions.  Other than that, there's not a huge amount of benefit either way in terms of length or speed for non-scientific purposes.  It doesn't matter if you measure yourself in centemeters or inches, and it doesn't matter if you measure speed in kmh or mph.

Although, metric-using meteorologists get a bit more leniency.  They're still given a couple degrees to be off before people start criticizing them, which turns into about 4 degrees in Farenheit.

     TBH, I never got the deal about the different degree sizes. You can't really tell a difference of one degree in either scale anyway.

What do you mean "the deal about the different degree sizes"?

     I mean, folks talk about how the smaller degree size in Fahrenheit is more convenient (like Ernest earlier in this thread). Except, one degree makes no difference either way. So it doesn't really matter.

It's more convenient if you want to be precise (although if you're being precise, you probably have a digital thermometer going to at least a tenth of a degree).

[shua]

I really don't see why the metric system is so inherently superior in non-scientific use.

It's just simpler and more intuitive.

Do you know off the top of your head how many feet make up half a mile, and how many meters make up half a kilometer? Which one is simpler to do in your head when needed?

2640. The math isn't hard. But conversion isn't the most important part of measurement. Units should be valuable in themselves.  I have an idea of how long half a mile is in experiential terms in a way that I don't for half a kilometer, so changing to metric length units would take a considerable mental and even kinesthetic adjustment.

Do you know how many teaspoons make a tablespoon, make up a fluid ounce, make up a cup, make up a pint, make up a quart, make up a gallon? Isn't that a bit... needlessly complicated? Hell, I can never remember how many ounces are in a cup and that's screwed up my cooking on several occasions. Wouldn't it just be SO much simpler to have small volumes measured in milliliters, and big ones in liters? And for intermediate measurements, just round to the nearest 50 or 100 mL? Certainly beats keeping track of the incredibly complicated system used in the US (never mind the fact that some of those terms are used identically in other places, but for different volumes).

3 teaspoons in a tablespoon. Again, the main importance here is that teaspoons and tablespoons are things people use anyway in real life. I don't know off hand how many tablespoons are in a fluid once, but the others I've known since I was in kindergarten and it's not difficult if you take the time to learn it and will save you a lot of trouble. Fluid measurements are based on multiples of 2: 8 floz in a cup, 2 cups in a pint, 2 pints in a quart, 4 quarts in a gallon. Doubling an object (as opposed to multiplying an abstract number) is much easier than multiplying an object by ten (is there even a word for that? double quintupling?).

[True Federalist]

     I mean, folks talk about how the smaller degree size in Fahrenheit is more convenient (like Ernest earlier in this thread). Except, one degree makes no difference either way. So it doesn't really matter.

Hah!  Tell that to my thermostat.  Partly it's because it's in the central hallway well away from all the windows, I have to adjust it constantly during the day. (What it needs setting to depends on time of day, how sunny it is, and the humidity,)  It's not uncommon for one degree F to be the right adjustment and two degrees F (approx 1 degree C) to be too much.

[Fmr. Emperor PiT]

     I mean, folks talk about how the smaller degree size in Fahrenheit is more convenient (like Ernest earlier in this thread). Except, one degree makes no difference either way. So it doesn't really matter.

Hah!  Tell that to my thermostat.  Partly it's because it's in the central hallway well away from all the windows, I have to adjust it constantly during the day. (What it needs setting to depends on time of day, how sunny it is, and the humidity,)  It's not uncommon for one degree F to be the right adjustment and two degrees F (approx 1 degree C) to be too much.

     Must be a Southern thing, then. I've only ever set my thermostat to one of two things: 70 degrees and off. It has always gotten the job done.

[True Federalist]

     I mean, folks talk about how the smaller degree size in Fahrenheit is more convenient (like Ernest earlier in this thread). Except, one degree makes no difference either way. So it doesn't really matter.

Hah!  Tell that to my thermostat.  Partly it's because it's in the central hallway well away from all the windows, I have to adjust it constantly during the day. (What it needs setting to depends on time of day, how sunny it is, and the humidity,)  It's not uncommon for one degree F to be the right adjustment and two degrees F (approx 1 degree C) to be too much.

     Must be a Southern thing, then. I've only ever set my thermostat to one of two things: 70 degrees and off. It has always gotten the job done.

This house could really use a dehumidfier to keep the humidity constant.  However, I never set the thermostat as low as 70. Today it was set to 80, which is fairly low because of the high humidity and clouds.  On dry sunny days, I'll set it as high as 86.

[Fmr. Emperor PiT]

     I mean, folks talk about how the smaller degree size in Fahrenheit is more convenient (like Ernest earlier in this thread). Except, one degree makes no difference either way. So it doesn't really matter.

Hah!  Tell that to my thermostat.  Partly it's because it's in the central hallway well away from all the windows, I have to adjust it constantly during the day. (What it needs setting to depends on time of day, how sunny it is, and the humidity,)  It's not uncommon for one degree F to be the right adjustment and two degrees F (approx 1 degree C) to be too much.

     Must be a Southern thing, then. I've only ever set my thermostat to one of two things: 70 degrees and off. It has always gotten the job done.

This house could really use a dehumidfier to keep the humidity constant.  However, I never set the thermostat as low as 70. Today it was set to 80, which is fairly low because of the high humidity and clouds.  On dry sunny days, I'll set it as high as 86.

     I've always found that anything above 70 degrees is not conducive to productive activity. 80 degrees is absurdly hot, and rare enough that I can't even say what I would do in that eventuality.

[Hatman]

     I mean, folks talk about how the smaller degree size in Fahrenheit is more convenient (like Ernest earlier in this thread). Except, one degree makes no difference either way. So it doesn't really matter.

Hah!  Tell that to my thermostat.  Partly it's because it's in the central hallway well away from all the windows, I have to adjust it constantly during the day. (What it needs setting to depends on time of day, how sunny it is, and the humidity,)  It's not uncommon for one degree F to be the right adjustment and two degrees F (approx 1 degree C) to be too much.

     Must be a Southern thing, then. I've only ever set my thermostat to one of two things: 70 degrees and off. It has always gotten the job done.

This house could really use a dehumidfier to keep the humidity constant.  However, I never set the thermostat as low as 70. Today it was set to 80, which is fairly low because of the high humidity and clouds.  On dry sunny days, I'll set it as high as 86.

That's 30 C.... if we did that here, the heater would be on for almost the entire year.

[True Federalist]

     I mean, folks talk about how the smaller degree size in Fahrenheit is more convenient (like Ernest earlier in this thread). Except, one degree makes no difference either way. So it doesn't really matter.

Hah!  Tell that to my thermostat.  Partly it's because it's in the central hallway well away from all the windows, I have to adjust it constantly during the day. (What it needs setting to depends on time of day, how sunny it is, and the humidity,)  It's not uncommon for one degree F to be the right adjustment and two degrees F (approx 1 degree C) to be too much.

     Must be a Southern thing, then. I've only ever set my thermostat to one of two things: 70 degrees and off. It has always gotten the job done.

This house could really use a dehumidfier to keep the humidity constant.  However, I never set the thermostat as low as 70. Today it was set to 80, which is fairly low because of the high humidity and clouds.  On dry sunny days, I'll set it as high as 86.

That's 30 C.... if we did that here, the heater would be on for almost the entire year.

The thermostat is a poor location, and this house has some interesting temperature gradients to say the least.  Actual air temp in the rooms I try to keep in the 78 to 80 range in the summer. Around 26 C.

[batmacumba]

Under that temperature I wear a sweater. But, at least, Farenheit uses decimal divisions.
Dealing with non-metric units is like reading Greek or Cyrilic for me. It's very weird having divisions which are not decimal parts of a unit. It seems senseless.

For natural measuring I still rather metric. Puting one thumb or one foot behind the other (I saw an American doing this once) is just dull. But almost anyone here learns to make a 1m step, which is much more useful, and knows the size of one's hand span, so even then you can measure faster than knowing imperial units.

[muon2]

Metric units become common in the US when two things are true: there's a market-based reason to use metric units, and the public is sufficiently exposed to the units to have an intuitive feel for them. As someone who uses and teaches measurement, I can say that both metric and imperial are equally arbitrary systems, but that's a different debate.

The liter as a unit of volume came into the US decades ago for beverage containers. The 2-liter bottle replaced the half-gallon for soft drinks, and the 750 ml bottle replaced the fifth for liquor. Today if you ask some one if they want a liter of water most Americans would have no trouble answering that question with a good understanding of what they would get. Note that unlike soft drinks and liquor, milk doesn't have an international market and it's still sold in imperial units.

OTOH, there's no equivalent international market for temperature in consumer products. Thus the first prong of my test has never been established. News organizations and other media can co-list C and F but, unless the public has a reason to consume something that is only denominated in C, the second prong isn't going to happen. And since the two systems are equally arbitrary from a consumer standpoint there's no reason to switch.

[The Head Beagle]

I find that in Canada there is a strong correlation between people's everyday use of metric and whether you normally get the information from a government source. Thus road signs for both distance and speed are exclusively in km, and thus miles are pretty uncommon even in everyday conversation, while people still measure themselves in feet or pounds. Weather is always exclusively C, since most media ultimately get their forecasts from the national Meteorological Service, and younger people often have no intuitive sense of F weather at all, while temperature in cooking is still mostly F since the market for ovens and cookbooks is private and integrated with the US. I'm a bit surprised that it doesn't seem to break down this way in the UK, particularly with the roads.