Lincoln Chafee: The US should convert to metric units

[Nexus]

Why not just represent 1/5th as 0.001100110011... and remove all the complexity? All of those base-whatever systems were fine for the 19th century, but using them now is like giving a letter to a Pony Express rider instead of sending an email.

You have never articulated why binary is a better system for people to use. The fact its convenient for machines is irrelevant since machines don't have preferences.

 

[beero1000]

Why not just represent 1/5th as 0.001100110011... and remove all the complexity? All of those base-whatever systems were fine for the 19th century, but using them now is like giving a letter to a Pony Express rider instead of sending an email.

You have never articulated why binary is a better system for people to use. The fact its convenient for machines is irrelevant since machines don't have preferences.

There's actually a justification for this - if the goal is to be able to store/represent lots of numbers with relatively few total symbols, then base 2 or 3 are best.

If we want to be able to represent every number from 1 to N with a base b system, we need around b log_b N = b ln N/ln b total symbols. This is maximized when b = e, but irrational bases weird people out. Base 3 is nominally better than base 2, but either way is fine...

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Why not just represent 1/5th as 0.001100110011... and remove all the complexity? All of those base-whatever systems were fine for the 19th century, but using them now is like giving a letter to a Pony Express rider instead of sending an email.

You have never articulated why binary is a better system for people to use. The fact its convenient for machines is irrelevant since machines don't have preferences.

Kind of the entire point. It doesn't matter what system individual societies use, because we're all carrying around these machines which have the ability to convert those measurements for us when we're in that society. If you're in Akhazaland and a sign tells you that you need to go 8 blipnorts to get to the train station, you know exactly how far that is without any effort on your part beyond punching some numbers into the app on your phone.

It's not important for me to be using blipnorts back in Canada to be able to navigate successfully in their society.

Also, the calculations are simple and memory is cheap, so so efficient systems aren't more valuable than inefficient systems.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why not just represent 1/5th as 0.001100110011... and remove all the complexity? All of those base-whatever systems were fine for the 19th century, but using them now is like giving a letter to a Pony Express rider instead of sending an email.

You have never articulated why binary is a better system for people to use. The fact its convenient for machines is irrelevant since machines don't have preferences.

How high can you comfortably count on your fingers?

1023 in binary.

How big are the tables of single-digit operations you must memorize in binary? 2x2

Binary makes for long numbers but easy math.

 

[lpetrich]

It is inconvenient to have to learn a whole different system and no particular benefit for most.

Boo hoo hoo hoo hoo.

I work in an industry (natural gas) (with a mess of units)

It is illegal in the US to sell steel dimensioned in metric units. You can't sell a 100 mm round for example.

Source?

(The "Gimli Glider", an airliner which was accidentally loaded with too little fuel because of an English/metric mixup)

Also, in this country we have advanced technology called "fuel gauges" that show "empty" as an E and "full" as an "F" with non-unit-denominated dashes to show half and quarter tanks (not tenths metric fuckers) which it seems would prevent this problem.

Except that filling up an airliner is not as simple as filling up a car, as Jarhyn explained. An airplane's fuel contributes to its weight, so one has to avoid carrying too much of it. Even if that means partially-full fuel tanks. Jarhyn, thanx for posting about actual experience.

tip: joke

That's no excuse. No excuse. dismal, to see what you mean, imagine that someone snickered that you cringe in fear of traffic lights as government nannying. You protest that that's very offensive. That someone responds "It's a joke. Don't you have a sense of humor?"

 

[Derec]

How high can you comfortably count on your fingers?

1023 in binary.

Except that 4, 128 and 132 are kind of rude.

 

[lpetrich]

Aviation's Crazy, Mixed Up Units of Measure - AeroSavvy

One of the challenges of international flying is handling different units of measure in different countries. In aviation, the battle between imperial and metric units continues. Feet, meters, statute miles, nautical miles, inches of mercury, millibars, hectopascal, knots, meters/second – it can get a little confusing! Read on and I’ll scramble your brain with international aviation units!

Air pressure: inches of mercury (inHg), hectopascals (hPa), or millibars (mb) (hPa = mb)
Altitude: feet, meters
Horizontal distance:
- Distance traveled: nautical miles (nm)
- Runway length: feet, meters
- Visibility: statute miles, feet, meters
Wind speed: knots (kt = nm/hr), meters per second -- 1 m/s ≈ 2 kts

he International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) is the governing body that makes official aviation recommendations. It might surprise a lot of pilots that for years, ICAO has recommended that the aviation world move completely to metric units (SI Units) ...

ICAO acknowledges that the current, haphazard system is so widely used that it will be difficult to switch. Costs for equipment upgrades and training would be staggering, so ICAO has put the transition on hold. The official word on imperial units: “Termination date: not established.”

North America seems to have drawn a line in the sand and plans to stay with the old, antiquated system. Regardless of ICAO recommendations, we are stuck with our confusing mix of units.

 

[barbos]

And what is 1/5 in your "best ever" system?

2.49724792497

So your rebuttal to base 12 is the mentioning the lone fraction in base 10 that isn't precise in base 12. By that stupid logic base 7 is superior to base 10 since 1/7 would be precise. In base 12 the fractional numbers 1/12, 1/6, 1/4, 1/3 1/2 would all be precise numbers to a single decimal point. In base 10 you have a grand total of three fractions that are precise to a single decimal point 1/10, 1/5, 1/2. And the disparity only gets worse as you add decimal point precision.

For those of you that failed 3rd grade and have trouble with fractions let me repeat you're not forced to use fractions in base 12 any more that you are in base 10. However base 12 is also better than base 10 when using decimal notation.

But US is not base 12. And I see no utility in base 12 anyway. I can just say 1/3 of a meter or 1/5 of a meter
or 0.2 meters.

 

[fromderinside]

But US is not base 12. And I see no utility in base 12 anyway. I can just say 1/3 of a meter or 1/5 of a meter
or 0.2 meters.

That isn't even good enough for government work. Now there's a damning critique.

 

[Nexus]

There's actually a justification for this - if the goal is to be able to store/represent lots of numbers with relatively few total symbols, then base 2 or 3 are best.

Storing numbers with the fewest symbols isn't a worthwhile goal though for every day human use. Roman numerals use few symbols yet look how inefficient that system is.

Symbolic abstraction is tool for thinking. And some tools are better for thinking than others. So to address Tom's point about letting computers do all the work. Using less optimal numeral systems still retards our thinking potential.

 

[Nexus]

But US is not base 12. And I see no utility in base 12 anyway. I can just say 1/3 of a meter or 1/5 of a meter
or 0.2 meters.

I'm aware that the US would never switch to base 12 if it won't even completely adopt a metric system. The reason I brought this up was to remind the metric advocates not to pat themselves too much on the back for their preferred system. It's not the best we can do.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

So to address Tom's point about letting computers do all the work. Using less optimal numeral systems still retards our thinking potential.

But the point of measurement systems isn't to increase our thinking potential, the point of them is to measure things. If you tell me how many hoppus feet away a place is and I can translate that into furlongs to know what you're saying without any difficulty, then it doesn't matter that we weren't standardized to both be using smoots.

 

[lpetrich]

Being multilingual is actually easier than supporting two sets of standard sizes -- all that is necessary is to have text in different languages. I've seen lots of multilingual instruction manuals and the like.

As to Burma and Liberia, it's hard to find much on their recent progress. I've found  Burmese units of measurement, but not much more.

Metric Vs Imperial: End Of An Epic Battle?

Well, don't hold your breath. Liberia will no doubt at some stage make the transition, and Burma might do the same, but the US appears to be an anti-metric stronghold. Judged solely upon the 'metrication battles' raging at internet fora, the opposition against the 'European socialist metric plot' sneaking 'commie units' into God's own country, seems deeply rooted in American society and has unmistakingly acquired distinct political and moral angles. US columnist Dave Barry clarified these sentiments in a hyperbole that might not be too far from true feelings:

"[..] my belief, as an American, is that if I have to start understanding the metric system, then the terrorists have won."

It should not come as a surprise that, to again quote Dave Berry:

"The metric system is not going to catch on in the States, unless you count the increasing popularity of the nine-millimeter bullet."

Bobby Jindal's argument reminds me of how Protestants and Eastern Orthodox refused to adopt Pope Gregory's calendar reform because it was a Catholic thing. But in later centuries, they all went along with it, first Protestants and then Eastern Orthodox. Russia went along with it only after the Godless Commies took over.

 

[Nexus]

If you tell me how many hoppus feet away a place is and I can translate that into furlongs to know what you're saying without any difficulty, then it doesn't matter that we weren't standardized to both be using smoots.

There is always some level of difficulty when thinking about anything. An accountant in the early middle ages using roman numerals might have claimed he had no difficulty so there was no point in switching to hindu-arabic numerals. But that fact remains the hindu-arabic numeral system we use today is better than roman numerals. and a base 12 numeral system would be better than our decimal system.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

If you tell me how many hoppus feet away a place is and I can translate that into furlongs to know what you're saying without any difficulty, then it doesn't matter that we weren't standardized to both be using smoots.

There is always some level of difficulty when thinking about anything. An accountant in the early middle ages using roman numerals might have claimed he had no difficulty so there was no point in switching to hindu-arabic numerals. But that fact remains the hindu-arabic numeral system we use today is better than roman numerals. and a base 12 numeral system would be better than our decimal system.

Why? Is there any base 10 value which cannot be converted into a base 12 value or vice versa? If not, it's irrelevant which one you use. I believe that Roman numerals had limitations in regards to decimals and fractions, so it's not a relevant comparison.

 

[Bronzeage]

There is always some level of difficulty when thinking about anything. An accountant in the early middle ages using roman numerals might have claimed he had no difficulty so there was no point in switching to hindu-arabic numerals. But that fact remains the hindu-arabic numeral system we use today is better than roman numerals. and a base 12 numeral system would be better than our decimal system.

Why? Is there any base 10 value which cannot be converted into a base 12 value or vice versa? If not, it's irrelevant which one you use. I believe that Roman numerals had limitations in regards to decimals and fractions, so it's not a relevant comparison.

The limitation of the Roman numeral systems was the lack of a zero. Roman arithmetic was a nightmare. It really never advanced beyond a counting on one's fingers level, and basically the numerals I, II, III, IV, and V, are simple representations of groups of fingers.

The lack of easy division and multiplication, which makes fractions even more difficult, created real problems when it came to tax collection. There was no such thing as a tax bracket or a marginal tax rate. The governor of a province was given an amount to collect. Any surplus was his to keep. The system extended down to local tax collectors. It was the retail level tax collectors who took the brunt of this system. Taxes had to be remitted in coin. The governor did not take pigs. In a cash poor society, this meant the tax collector might demand all the cash in the house. He was seen as thief who operated in daylight. With no fractions or percentages, the tax rate was basically, "What have you got?"

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Why? Is there any base 10 value which cannot be converted into a base 12 value or vice versa? If not, it's irrelevant which one you use. I believe that Roman numerals had limitations in regards to decimals and fractions, so it's not a relevant comparison.

The limitation of the Roman numeral systems was the lack of a zero. Roman arithmetic was a nightmare. It really never advanced beyond a counting on one's fingers level, and basically the numerals I, II, III, IV, and V, are simple representations of groups of fingers.

The lack of easy division and multiplication, which makes fractions even more difficult, created real problems when it came to tax collection. There was no such thing as a tax bracket or a marginal tax rate. The governor of a province was given an amount to collect. Any surplus was his to keep. The system extended down to local tax collectors. It was the retail level tax collectors who took the brunt of this system. Taxes had to be remitted in coin. The governor did not take pigs. In a cash poor society, this meant the tax collector might demand all the cash in the house. He was seen as thief who operated in daylight. With no fractions or percentages, the tax rate was basically, "What have you got?"

Ya, that's my point. It's not something that's comparable to the discussion.

 

[Bronzeage]

The limitation of the Roman numeral systems was the lack of a zero. Roman arithmetic was a nightmare. It really never advanced beyond a counting on one's fingers level, and basically the numerals I, II, III, IV, and V, are simple representations of groups of fingers.

The lack of easy division and multiplication, which makes fractions even more difficult, created real problems when it came to tax collection. There was no such thing as a tax bracket or a marginal tax rate. The governor of a province was given an amount to collect. Any surplus was his to keep. The system extended down to local tax collectors. It was the retail level tax collectors who took the brunt of this system. Taxes had to be remitted in coin. The governor did not take pigs. In a cash poor society, this meant the tax collector might demand all the cash in the house. He was seen as thief who operated in daylight. With no fractions or percentages, the tax rate was basically, "What have you got?"

Ya, that's my point. It's not something that's comparable to the discussion.

Not to mention, a base 12 system would require 2 new numerals to represent 10 and 11. A naming contest would be fun. My submissions would be tenf and elvf, Tenf would be an inverted 2 and elvf would be an reversed 3. It worked for 6 and 9, so why not?

 

[Jayjay]

Nevermind.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How high can you comfortably count on your fingers?

1023 in binary.

Except that 4, 128 and 132 are kind of rude.

Well, up yours also!