Hacker News new | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Now even the U.S. can adopt it.

The U.S. adopted it in the 19th century.


Unfortunately, this is not the reason the US isn't adopting SI.

SI and metric are actually subtly different. Do any countries actually use SI rather than metric?

At least the whole EU uses SI units by Directive 80/181/EEC (so called "Units of Measure Directive"). From everything I know, most other countries of the world use SI as well. Not surprising, as the system is now 55 years old and explicitly replaced former definitions.

Even US laws explicitly refer to SI, for example the Metric Conversion Act of 1975: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-89/pdf/STATUTE-89-Pg100...

UK uses miles on road signs, pints in pubs, etc. Many people still use stones and pounds for human weight, even if they're in a medical setting.

However, those are explicitly defined in terms of SI units for use in the UK in that directive.

The question of GGP was, whether some countries use other metric systems which are not SI. I don't think such a country exists.

The Imperial volume units used in Britain are vaguely metric, and different from the US customary (i.e. Queen Anne) units. The Imperial gallon is the volume of 10 lb avoirdupois of water at s.t.p. The other similarity to French metric units is they replaced a number of different application-specific volume measures.

At about the same time as the Imperial unit reform Britain introduced the "florin" 2 shilling coin, 10 per pound, another vague attempt at decimalization.

What is?

Inertia and the fact that alternatives are "good enough".

American exceptionalism.

Ronald Reagan

That's from Wikipedia:


>In 1981, the USMB reported to Congress that it lacked the clear Congressional mandate necessary to bring about national conversion. Because of this ineffectiveness and an effort of the Reagan administration — particularly from Lyn Nofziger's efforts (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03... ) as a White House advisor to the Reagan administration, to reduce federal spending — the USMB was disbanded in the autumn of 1982.


>The metrification assessment board existed from 1975 to 1982, ending when President Ronald Reagan abolished it, largely on the recommendation of Frank Mankiewicz and Lyn Nofziger. Overall, it made little impact on implementing the metric system in the United States.


>According to Mankiewicz, he prompted Lyn Nofziger's efforts to halt the 1970s U.S. metrication effort, who convinced President Ronald Reagan to shut down the United States Metric Board


> So, during that first year of Reagan's presidency, I sent Lyn another copy of a column I had written a few years before, attacking and satirizing the attempt by some organized do-gooders to inflict the metric system on Americans, a view of mine Lyn had enthusiastically endorsed. So, in 1981, when I reminded him that a commission actually existed to further the adoption of the metric system and the damage we both felt this could wreak on our country, Lyn went to work with material provided by each of us. He was able, he told me, to prevail on the president to dissolve the commission and make sure that, at least in the Reagan presidency, there would be no further effort to sell metric.

>It was a signal victory, but one which we recognized would have to be shared only between the two of us, lest public opinion once again began to head toward metrification.


The \N in 'NIST' is for "National" and the nation to which "national" refers is the United States. I'm not against switching to metric, but after forty years since I read about it in fourth grade, I am pretty confident that the switch won't make most people's lives better.

I'm with you on most of the metric system: but there's a good argument that Celsius is decidedly inferior to Fahrenheit (of course, neither are SI).

If you like angles or big numbers? 0/100°C trumps 32/212°F in my book; and body temperatures – 37°C vs 98°F – are equally difficult to remember.

Let's turn that on its head. Do you prefer 0/100 F or -18/38 C for measuring typical weather temperatures?

And Fahrenheit's higher unit precision is a distinct advantage in taking and interpreting temperatures of people, particularly children.

Celsius vs Fahrenheit seems to be the same as Aluminium vs Aluminum: the one you grew up with is the one that seems to make more sense.

I don't think a good argument can be made for Celsius. Like Fahrenheit, Celsius exists as a measure of temperatures within the typical experience of humans. There is one primary use of such a scale, and that is measurement of air temperature (weather, indoor temperature). A distant secondary use is in cooking.

Faherenheit's 0-100 range is basically a close match for the extremes in weather temperature experienced by typical human beings. Celsius is not even close. Additionally, Fahrenheit's scale has roughly twice the resolution of Celsius, and humans are good at distinguishing this precision. Unit precision is also helpful for body temperature.

Regarding the distant secondary use: obviously Celsius's range matches freezing and boiling: but because water's phase change is consistent and obvious at these temperatures (modulo altitude), cooking rarely involves measuring temperatures in this range except for unusual cases like candy. Celsius has no advantage at all for the primary use of temperature in cooking: baking.

Interestingly, the pound is already defined as a multiple of the kilogram, and has been for a few decades.

They never would've had this problem if they'd just stuck with the pound.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact