
In defence of imperial units - pelle
http://stakeventures.com/articles/2007/08/28/in-defence-of-imperial-units
======
mixmax
I think there are some rather poor arguments in the post. The primary one
seems to be that imperial units are easier to eyeball, but I'd say that's only
because the author is used to the imperial system. If you're used to meters
and not feet I don't see why it would be harder to judge the length of a room
in meters than in feet. The author mentions cups as a good measure, because
it's inherently easy to judge since you know how big a cup is. In my kitchen
the largest cup can hold around 3 times as much as the smallest cup though...

When actually doing calculations with imperial units it becomes obvious that
it's an absolute mess. If you don't believe me try to calculate which holds
more volume without converting to the metric system; a box with the dimensions
2 feet 3 5/8 inches by 3 feet 1 1/4 inches by 2 feet 7/16 inches or a sphere
with a diameter of 3 feet 2 17/32 inches.

~~~
bunderbunder
I suspect some of these examples also come down to making much hay of the lack
of decimalization in Imperial units, combined with the way a name has been
assigned to just about every possible subdivision of each unit. 250mL isn't
really any harder than a cup, nor is 500mL harder than a pint. And we could
make them sound just as cuddly by assigning them special names.

But I think a lot is lost in that, by way of usability. Here's a quiz: You're
planning a party. How many pint servings of beer can you get out of a 15
gallon keg? Now let's do it in Metric. How many half-liter servings of beer
can you get out of a 50 liter keg?

I think most anyone will instantly recognize that in the latter case you just
need to multiply 50 by 2 to get the answer. But most people will probably have
to stop and think through a couple layers of unit conversion (four quarts in a
gallon, two pints in a quart) before realizing that you can multiply 15*8 to
get the first figure. Heck, I suspect that even among people who grew up with
Imperial units a lot might get stuck without a hint.

------
davedx
So to summarize, the defence is "feet seem easier to eyeball than meters" and
"some people in the world still use Imperial".

It is indeed contrarian. Also stating that metric is derived form real
physical properties of the universe "is about as useless and arbitrary in
daily life that seriously, who cares" -- so it's useless to know that 1 liter
of water is 1 kg?

~~~
VLM
The best defense came in the comments, divisibility.

Metric 10s can only be divided by 2 and 5 and thats about it without breaking
out fractions and decimals, but imperial 12s and 16s are awesome for practical
commerce because its so easily divided.

Probably the best compromise that offends both sides equally would be using
metric as the root unit and multiplier concept, with hexadecimal to express
multiples.

So 0xD3 hex kilograms would be 211 decimal kilograms, and a kilogram would be
16 times 16 times 16 grams not 10 times 10 times 10 grams, so that would be
864256 decimal grams aka 0xd3000 hex grams or very near 1900 decimal pounds.
So a wood pallet with 0xD3 kilos of product on it with some packaging material
weighs about a old fashioned ton in total.

Either that or we should offend everyone equally by switching to a small prime
number base to eliminate the usefulness of divisibility... so henceforth an
imperial pound shall be precisely 7 ounces not more not less. Suddenly metric
starts sounding better...

------
nodata
_Thus a foot is well the length of a human foot... A cup, is well a cup. An
inch is a thumb length._

Not really much of a killer argument: my foot is not the size of someone
else's foot. Nor is my cup. Nor is my thumb length.

~~~
sp332
Your foot is much closer to a foot than to a meter. Your cup is more cup-sized
than liter-sized. An average guy's thumb is about an inch across, not a
centimeter. Having sizes of things that are more common and relateable is
important.

~~~
antihero
Yeah but saying that conforming to supposed real objects is ridiculous. Metric
is great _because_ it doesn't correspond to anything in particular, thus there
can be no mistakes - a metre is a metre!

------
pavel_lishin
> _The metric system was originally developed by scientists during the
> enlightenment, but became the political tool it is today as part of the
> French revolution, yes it was brought to you by the good folks who also
> brought you the guillotine._

I forget the latin term for why this is a bad argument.

> _An inch is a thumb length._

You have tiny thumbs.

> _For measuring the length of something smallish like a notebook 15 inches
> just seems easier to relate to than 38 cm._

Which is why most people would probably say something like "40 cm" instead of
38.

> _When measuring a room feet just seems an easier unit to eyeball._

Because you're used to measuring room sizes in square feet. Is it difficult to
eyeball yards? Because my rule of thumb (or should it be "rule of inch"?) is
that a meter is about a yard. If you can eyeball feet, you can eyeball meters.

> _Almost all recipe’s call for a pound of meat as it’s a kind of natural
> portion amount of meat to cook with._

Of course, because we're living in a country where we use imperial measures.
This is about as surprising and about as convincing as the fact that
encyclopedias claim that the United States Congress has 435 members.

~~~
opinali
>> The metric system was originally developed by scientists during the
enlightenment, but became the political tool it is today as part of the French
revolution, yes it was brought to you by the good folks who also brought you
the guillotine.

>I forget the latin term for why this is a bad argument.

That latin would be, I think, "brainus fuckus" :)

------
pelle
The article is not anti metric it's pro imperial units for the things that
imperial units are good for.

Nassim Taleb makes the exact same argument in his latest book Anti Fragile.

Imperial units can be used and understood by people who can't even read.

Metric units are not necessarily bad and has all kinds of important aspect.
But we geeks shouldn't force it on the rest of the world, just to satisfy our
geek sensibilities.

------
dragonwriter
It's amusing that the author's first reference to "Imperial" units is a
reference to their use in "Joy of Cooking", which uses US Customary -- not
Imperial -- units.

Of course, the two systems are very similar, sharing many units and sharing
the names of other units. But that's actually part of the problem with the
Imperial system and its relatives -- works rarely explicitly note which system
they are using, so if something uses a system with unit names that look like
Imperial units, you have to deduce from place of origin which system is
actually in use (and since in many cases the Imperial and related systems have
same-named units of the same dimension in the same system that are used by
convention for different purposes, you have to deduce from context which unit
is actually being used even when you know which system is being used.)

And that's why its better to use a system where there is never an ambiguity in
which units are actually being used.

------
antihero
> French revolution, yes it was brought to you by the good folks who also
> brought you the guillotine. Thus it was imposed on people from above to
> better their lives

The people of France imposed it on themselves. Riiiight.

> Everyone in England thinks in pounds, stones (yes stones), miles and feet.

No, we don't. Don't speak for me.

A _variable base_ numbering system is utterly absurd and needs to die.

Saying that imperial measurements conform to "real" things is a fallacy,
because feet and cups and whatnot are of varying sizes. A metre is an exact
length, which we can picture. Feet vary greatly in size.

Basically this article is total bunk.

------
CurtHagenlocher
"It’s way more natural to use a cup of liquid as the base of a recipe than
deciliters"? Really? What if I have a recipe for 5 people that I want to scale
down for my 3-person family. What's 60% of a cup? A half cup plus a roughly
half-full quarter cup?

This is much easier when the amount is expressed as 240ml.

Disclaimer: I'm an engineer. I also brew beer and bake bread, so I'm often
scaling recipes.

~~~
TheAmazingIdiot
I've always been happy with "The Bread Bible", by Rose Levy Beranbaum. That
book contains all recipes in both metric and imperial.

When I make short meads, I do it a little more off the cuff.. Then it's what
tastes right for the honey water in terms of concentration.

------
kungpoo
Sorry, but the arguments put forward in this article are terrible and it's
full of false, subjective assumptions.

------
Someone
_"An inch is a thumb length"_??

An inch is a thumb's _width_ , not its length. Likely chosen over length
because it is ergonomically easier than measuring along its length. Also: what
part do you measure? First phalange? Both? Inside? Outside?

~~~
antihero
Wouldn't it be girth?

~~~
Someone
That might be a way to measure short lengths of wire, but a cylindrical thumb
with a girth of one inch would have a diameter of about 8mm, so no, it
wouldn't, unless it was invented by an aye-aye.

------
TheAmazingIdiot
What exactly is a pound? Is it a mass? If not, what is the Imperial
equivalent? This confused the hell out of me the first time I took uni
physics. I had an older gentleman teach the class who kept talking about
slugs.

And just to anger metric people: How heavy is Le Gran K today? (note that I
prefer metric)

Inches to feet is base 12. Feet to yards are base 3. Feet to Miles is base
5280. WHAT?

We can go on and on about the imperial system, and many do. The "funny" fact
of the matter is this guy is pontificating mainly because of familiarity, and
not any scientific rigor. His best argument is that Imperial measurements are
based on eyeballing. So can metric, if you are familiar with them.

~~~
mpyne
> His best argument is that Imperial measurements are based on eyeballing. So
> can metric, if you are familiar with them.

I think people pushing for metric in the U.S. keep forgetting that they are
pushing _against_ the status quo. I.e. there must be a positive net benefit to
the change they want for there to be a reasonable shot at getting the vast
entrenched infrastructure of units displaced.

Saying "but but metric can do this too!!" isn't good enough. Metric needs to
be _better_ and the fact of the matter is that U.S. imperial units are good
enough for the day to day life of the average citizen (who for the most part
don't even go around converting imperial units, making any improvement in how
conversions can be calculated a moot point).

~~~
VLM
"who for the most part don't even go around converting imperial units"

This is the key line which MUST be understood, no matter which side of the
argument you're on. Its a sig fig issue.

Converting feet to miles is a nearly useless activity. A mile is the minimum
human discernible distance for a marching roman legion, in that no human can
tell the difference between a 8.2 and a 8.3 mile march at the end of the day,
but most can, at the end of the day, tell the difference between 8 and 9 miles
of march. So the minimum human sized unit for marching distance is the mile.

Ditto degrees F, although the probably apocryphal story about the local
weather fitting in a 0 to 100 degree range is probably almost as good a reason
as most humans can not discern temps finer than one degree.

Another sig fig issue rears its head where frankly unless you're a pastry chef
"any ole cup" is close enough to Plato's concept of the ideal form of a cup or
a chemists concept of a graduated cylinder for successful cooking or virtually
all dishes. If your soup turns out foul its because of substandard ingredients
or technique, not because you used 1001 ml of water instead of 1000 ml.

I like metric as a conformity thing in science and engineering, but its not
inherently any better. You can do useless things that almost no one ever needs
to do easier in one system or another, but it doesn't matter most of the time,
so just conform and when in rome do as the romans do.

