Why the heck does America still use outdated measurement and date units?

[bunnspecial]

Out of curiosity, what makes imperial easier for most purposes in day to day life for you? Is it mostly that that's what's used around where you are in day to day life (and thus metric would then be easier if that was being used around where you are in day to day life)?

This has been said before in this thread, but there are quite a few conveniences that have to do with the size of the units. For example, in my state, 0-100º F is a typical temperature range over the course of the year, and it's very logical for me to have the temperatures that I'm actually encountering daily spread out over a 100º range rather than a 40º range or so as they would be in Celcius.

For distance measurements, the average adult male has a laundry list of built in measuring sticks that can make visualizing distances easy. My finger tips are pretty darn close to 1" long. My shoes are almost exactly 12" long, so I can measure off a distance in feet by walking heel to toe in a straight line. My middle finger to elbow is exactly 18". The distance between my hip and the bottom of my feet is pretty darn close to 3 feet. With my arms outstretched, my fingertip to fingertip distance is a little over 6'.

That's just a few examples, and maybe I know them because of the fact that I grew up in an imperial country. The fact remains, however, that for myself and many Americans, it is incredibly easy to "think" in imperial units.

 

[Precision Gem]

This has been said before in this thread, but there are quite a few conveniences that have to do with the size of the units. For example, in my state, 0-100º F is a typical temperature range over the course of the year, and it's very logical for me to have the temperatures that I'm actually encountering daily spread out over a 100º range rather than a 40º range or so as they would be in Celcius.

For distance measurements, the average adult male has a laundry list of built in measuring sticks that can make visualizing distances easy. My finger tips are pretty darn close to 1" long. My shoes are almost exactly 12" long, so I can measure off a distance in feet by walking heel to toe in a straight line. My middle finger to elbow is exactly 18". The distance between my hip and the bottom of my feet is pretty darn close to 3 feet. With my arms outstretched, my fingertip to fingertip distance is a little over 6'.

That's just a few examples, and maybe I know them because of the fact that I grew up in an imperial country. The fact remains, however, that for myself and many Americans, it is incredibly easy to "think" in imperial units.

You have to understand that these Europeans don't understand that a football field is actually 100 yards long, and you score touchdowns not goals.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

You have to understand that these Europeans don't understand that a football field is actually 100 yards long, and you score touchdowns not goals.

You're right. We don't understand that, at all. Along with much else......

In fact, outside of rugby football, - where I understand the concept of a try - what exactly are touchdowns?

 

[JeffyTheQuik]

Come on. That gives us one more day of summer.

Yes it needs to change. A few years back I was doing a tile project at the house and went to Lowe's to buy a tile cutter. They had a deal on one that was so much less than any other one. Got it home and realized the measurements were metric. Didn't bother me one bit and it has been a good tile cutter.

And winter too... (December - January) so it's a nice balance!

 

[cube]

It is still annoying to have 2 consecutive months with 31 days, breaking the alternating pattern.

However, the knuckle rule is cool. Is this where it's coming from, or to divide the year into 2 similar patterns with center Jul/Aug?

 

[flat five]

Most people are frightened of numbers, - or, at the very least, - do not feel confident in bandying them about, as the joy in simply playing around with numbers - seeing how they interact with one one another and how they relate to one another - has been leached out of them since they were very young while attending school.

Even in our first world, an astonishing (and disgraceful, and shameful) number of youngsters - especially youngsters from underprivileged backgrounds - are barely functionally literate or numerate.

And, because of that, systems that will be broadly accepted are those that people are either familiar with, or comfortable with. Talking about base 12 - unless it is very persuasively argued - will merely serve to frighten the life out of them.

the point i just can't seem to get across is the people who you are talking about, the terrified ones, are exactly the people who benefit most from using base12 over base10.

Steven Hawking? he benefits the least as those types of people are doing calculations beyond what's even graspable, even as a concept, to the majority of people.. their formulas and calculations and whatnot are going to be crazy no matter what base they're using.. the base is nearly irrelevant after certain levels of math and i'm most definitely not saying anything anywhere near close to "we should switch to base 12 so scientists can work more easily".. it's not for them, it's for us.

(like- realize someone who is very well versed in mathematics can approach a problem with more of a mindset of "this formula will work well in base8.. so i'm going to use base8".. if society switched to base 12, complex calculations remain the exact same.. and they'll remain in the base they were calculated in or the one that are cleanest to communicate in.. you and i using base10 is holding back complex mathematics about 0%.. for Will Hunting? he gains nothing and he loses nothing if we switch to base12 counting

-----
our four basic math operations needed in modern life are:
addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division.

of these, three of them will be unaffected in base 10 vs base 12:
addition, subtraction, and multiplication

none of these can change whole numbers (or integers) into decimal/fractions..

4 + 15 = 19
143 - 21 = 122
6 x 7 = 42

you will never end up with a fraction/decimal, or a scary number, with any of these operations unless you're faced with decimals before doing the calculation.
(in base 12, the same is true but that's not really the point)

it's Division -- that's the weird one.. that's the confusing one.

it can turn simple looking numbers such as 5 & 3 into :

5 ÷ 3 = 1.666666666666_

???
what the heck is that : )

with base10, you are very likely to encounter a scenario while dividing which doesn't have a clean or simple solution even when the input numbers are seemingly very simple and common.

you can only divide Ten by 2 numbers cleanly... or- you only have a 1 out of 5 chance to get clean division using base 10 when using whole numbers to begin with.. further, only one of these 2 numbers is a very common number (#2).. the other one is number 5..

this is what happens when you do division in base 10:

10 ÷ 1 = 10
10 ÷ 2 = 5
10 ÷ 3 = 3.333_
10 ÷ 4 = 2.5
10 ÷ 5 = 2
10 ÷ 6 = 1.666_
10 ÷ 7 = 1.428
10 ÷ 8 = 1.25
10 ÷ 9 = 1.1111_

as you can see, there are only 2 numbers that work well and give clean results.. 2 & 5..
4 is ok, it's a little more confusing since it brings a fraction into play but it's just a single digit decimal so still not to bad.. likewise, 8 isn't really too bad either.
7? that starts getting into scary zone.. it's a repeating decimal but still resolves ok if only going out 3 decimals.. now, #3, 6, and 9 are just horrible.. they are repeating decimals (as in, even if you understand mathematics, a repeating decimal is bad since you can never arrive at an exact answer with it..).. but not only that, they are repeating instantly.. the very first decimal point leaves you with an estimated value instead of an actual true number)

so, out of the 9 numbers, only 2 work well... of the most common numbers (1-4), only #2 works great, one of them is o.k, and one is horrible.

the rest? pretty much crap.

this is our current counting situation.. this is our agreed upon system and the one that's been taught for a few thousand years to most people.

if the system were instead base12, it would look like this:


10 ÷ 1 = 10
10 ÷ 2 = 6
10 ÷ 3 = 4
10 ÷ 4 = 3
10 ÷ 5 = 2.497
10 ÷ 6 = 2
10 ÷ 7 = 1.714
10 ÷ 8 = 1.6
10 ÷ 9 = 1.4

ALL of the most common numbers resolve very cleanly..
there are NO immediate repeating decimals.
#8 is better as it now resolves at one decimal.
#9 is waaayy better
#6 is waaayy way better
#7 is equally bad and only #5 takes a hit in base12 vs base10.

but most importantly, #4 now remains a whole number..
and finally #3.. the most improved of them all.

in this example, only 2 of the numbers are problematic whereas in base10, only 3 of the numbers aren't causing any problems.

further yet, the numbers 1-4 are our most used numbers.. percentage wise, most everyday calculations are going to be using these numbers in them.. all 4 of them work sweet here.

and these same types of results/comparison will happen when using all the other numbers beyond 10..
in decimal, odds are you're going to end up with a difficult number when dividing easy numbers.. in duodecimal, odds are you're going to end up with an easy number when dividing easy numbers.

likewise, odds go up that you'll end up with an easy number when starting with difficult ones and that same applies to multiplication as well.. there are some other neat thing that happen with multiplication in base12 but for now, i just want to point out the most advantageous.. that being Division..

---
but to tie back into the thread regarding units and whatnot... all we're doing with a unit (such as a meter.. or an inch... or the number Ten (ie- one unit in base10)) is dividing it up into smaller pieces or multiplying it into larger pieces.. or adding units together or subtracting from each other.. when a measuring unit is in base12, you will experience the exact same advantages as i've shown in the simple division examples above over a measuring unit that has been divided up into ten pieces.


..
..
..
.
.
.

[doublepost=1464928109][/doublepost]

And, for those who crave uniformity, - and dislike the erratic sequence of the months as currently defined - the idea of a calendar with a 13 month year (of 28 days each) has been around a while. However, I just doubt that it will gain wide acceptance anytime soon.

in the same exact way as i'm saying "let's consider switching to base12 instead of base10"..

you're saying "let's consider switching to base 13 instead of base12"

it's just that you're saying it in a way that you understand so you're not even realizing you're saying it (point being, switching between bases isn't some far out concept.. we do it all the time.. every single day.
it's just the way i'm talking about it that makes it seem foreign and scary.. but for real, you switch between base10, base12, base60, & probably base8 every day.. sometimes within the same thought or sentence.. without even realizing it.. it's in the background and the switching is fluid and simple.

----
anyway, that's not my point in quoting you here

base13 is bad news.. especially for a calendar.

you would have no 1/2 years.. no quarters (as in fiscal quarters.. school semesters.. etc).. no bi monthly events (well, you could still do that.. they'd just fall on odd months one year then even the next)..

13 is a prime number... no other numbers will divide into it other than 1 and itself.. and as i've tried to point out earlier, the more numbers that can divide cleanly into a base then the simpler daily math becomes..

but yeah, 13 months is quite possibly the worst way to divide up a year.. it's entirely unusable (i'm exaggerating there) or- everything you try to do with that number will end up something funky.

 

[flat five]

here are some example mathematics questions using base12:
(calendar math is in base12.. not the days.. just the month/year)

we now have 12 numbers instead of 10.. just like we have 12 months instead of 10.. they are:

0

1 = Jan
2 = Feb
3 = Mar
4 = Apr
5 = May
6 = Jun
7 = Jul
8 = Aug
9 = Sep
X = Oct
Ɛ = Nov
10 = Dec

(the digits 1 & 0 combine to form '10'... it's 1 unit of the base plus 0 additional numbers... this would likely be the most awkward part for a person who used base10 since birth to switch to base12.. the number you know as '10' is now represented with a single character 'X' (or whatever).. "10" now becomes the amount you've always known as 12.. that said, if you were taught base12 since birth and i said "no, the number 10 now is the number you've always known as X".. you'd think i were equally crazy.. probably even more so )


-------

so...

A) How many months are in 2 years?
B) How many months are in 2-1/2 years?
C) How many months are in 1/2 year?
D) How many months are in 1/4 year?
E) Divide a year into 3 parts

---- written in decimal---

A) 12 x 2 = 24 months
B) 12 x 2.5 = 30
C) 12 ÷ 2 = 6 months
D) 12 ÷ 4 = 3 months
E) 12 ÷ 3 = 4 months.

--- in duodecimal ---

A) 10 x 2 = 20months
B) 10 x 2.6 = 26months (remember, '10' here represents the same amount as 12 in decimal.. but note how the point simply moves when using 10.. same as in decimal)
C) 10 ÷ 2 = 6
D) 10 ÷ 4 = 3
E) 10 ÷ 3 = 4


------

and here's what would happen if it were in base ten (meaning, the year was divided into 10 months instead of 12)

A) 10 x 2 = 20 months
B) 10 X 2.5 = 25 months
C) 10 ÷ 2 = 5 months
D) 10 ÷ 4 = 2-1/2 months
E) 10 ÷ 3 = 3.33333333333333 months.



clicking any? yeah/no?

 

[Scepticalscribe]

How did you take from my post a recommendation of using a base of 13? In no way did I recommend this.

Rather, I simply said that it - as a hypothetical intellectual exercise - can exist for calendars - making a thirteenth month - (13 x 28 = 364, plus 1 added day) for those who think the current system of measuring months in uneven and unequal lengths a bit of a challenge. Nowhere do I recall recommending it.

Besides, I think that we are at cross purposes. You are trying to bludgeon me into submission, by stressing how superior your preferred system is, but my point is a different one.

I have lived through a number of currency changes, and, unless people feel safe and secure in a system (and that is not just about money in their pocket) they will not willingly countenance it. They must feel comfortable in it.

However, it is one of the tragedies of mathematics that the subject seems to be cursed with large numbers of poor teachers, and that a surprising number of those who excel at maths are perfectly dreadful when asked to teach those same concepts and ideas.

And, as for that final patronising sentence 'clicking any? yeah/no?' Well, firstly, I like full sentences, complete with capital letters at the beginning of a sentence. But, then, I'm European, and I like decorum and a bit of formality. Anyway, secondly, do you really think that such a sentence is conducive to persuading anyone to take anything you have to say seriously?

 

[flat five]

How did you take from my post a recommendation of using a base of 13? In no way did I recommend this.

pretty sure the word i used was 'consider'..
not 'recommend'

You are trying to bludgeon me into submission, by stressing how superior your preferred system is

bye

 

[JeffyTheQuik]

the point i just can't seem to get across is the people who you are talking about, the terrified ones, are exactly the people who benefit most from using base12 over base10.

Steven Hawking? he benefits the least as those types of people are doing calculations beyond what's even graspable, even as a concept, to the majority of people.. their formulas and calculations and whatnot are going to be crazy no matter what base they're using.. the base is nearly irrelevant after certain levels of math and i'm most definitely not saying anything anywhere near close to "we should switch to base 12 so scientists can work more easily".. it's not for them, it's for us.

(like- realize someone who is very well versed in mathematics can approach a problem with more of a mindset of "this formula will work well in base8.. so i'm going to use base8".. if society switched to base 12, complex calculations remain the exact same.. and they'll remain in the base they were calculated in or the one that are cleanest to communicate in.. you and i using base10 is holding back complex mathematics about 0%.. for Will Hunting? he gains nothing and he loses nothing if we switch to base12 counting

-----
our four basic math operations needed in modern life are:
addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division.

of these, three of them will be unaffected in base 10 vs base 12:
addition, subtraction, and multiplication

none of these can change whole numbers (or integers) into decimal/fractions..

4 + 15 = 19
143 - 21 = 122
6 x 7 = 42

you will never end up with a fraction/decimal, or a scary number, with any of these operations unless you're faced with decimals before doing the calculation.
(in base 12, the same is true but that's not really the point)

it's Division -- that's the weird one.. that's the confusing one.

it can turn simple looking numbers such as 5 & 3 into :

5 ÷ 3 = 1.666666666666_

???
what the heck is that : )

with base10, you are very likely to encounter a scenario while dividing which doesn't have a clean or simple solution even when the input numbers are seemingly very simple and common.

you can only divide Ten by 2 numbers cleanly... or- you only have a 1 out of 5 chance to get clean division using base 10 when using whole numbers to begin with.. further, only one of these 2 numbers is a very common number (#2).. the other one is number 5..

this is what happens when you do division in base 10:

10 ÷ 1 = 10
10 ÷ 2 = 5
10 ÷ 3 = 3.333_
10 ÷ 4 = 2.5
10 ÷ 5 = 2
10 ÷ 6 = 1.666_
10 ÷ 7 = 1.428
10 ÷ 8 = 1.25
10 ÷ 9 = 1.1111_

as you can see, there are only 2 numbers that work well and give clean results.. 2 & 5..
4 is ok, it's a little more confusing since it brings a fraction into play but it's just a single digit decimal so still not to bad.. likewise, 8 isn't really too bad either.
7? that starts getting into scary zone.. it's a repeating decimal but still resolves ok if only going out 3 decimals.. now, #3, 6, and 9 are just horrible.. they are repeating decimals (as in, even if you understand mathematics, a repeating decimal is bad since you can never arrive at an exact answer with it..).. but not only that, they are repeating instantly.. the very first decimal point leaves you with an estimated value instead of an actual true number)

so, out of the 9 numbers, only 2 work well... of the most common numbers (1-4), only #2 works great, one of them is o.k, and one is horrible.

the rest? pretty much crap.

this is our current counting situation.. this is our agreed upon system and the one that's been taught for a few thousand years to most people.

if the system were instead base12, it would look like this:


10 ÷ 1 = 10
10 ÷ 2 = 6
10 ÷ 3 = 4
10 ÷ 4 = 3
10 ÷ 5 = 2.497
10 ÷ 6 = 2
10 ÷ 7 = 1.714
10 ÷ 8 = 1.6
10 ÷ 9 = 1.4

ALL of the most common numbers resolve very cleanly..
there are NO immediate repeating decimals.
#8 is better as it now resolves at one decimal.
#9 is waaayy better
#6 is waaayy way better
#7 is equally bad and only #5 takes a hit in base12 vs base10.

but most importantly, #4 now remains a whole number..
and finally #3.. the most improved of them all.

in this example, only 2 of the numbers are problematic whereas in base10, only 3 of the numbers aren't causing any problems.

further yet, the numbers 1-4 are our most used numbers.. percentage wise, most everyday calculations are going to be using these numbers in them.. all 4 of them work sweet here.

and these same types of results/comparison will happen when using all the other numbers beyond 10..
in decimal, odds are you're going to end up with a difficult number when dividing easy numbers.. in duodecimal, odds are you're going to end up with an easy number when dividing easy numbers.

likewise, odds go up that you'll end up with an easy number when starting with difficult ones and that same applies to multiplication as well.. there are some other neat thing that happen with multiplication in base12 but for now, i just want to point out the most advantageous.. that being Division..

---
but to tie back into the thread regarding units and whatnot... all we're doing with a unit (such as a meter.. or an inch... or the number Ten (ie- one unit in base10)) is dividing it up into smaller pieces or multiplying it into larger pieces.. or adding units together or subtracting from each other.. when a measuring unit is in base12, you will experience the exact same advantages as i've shown in the simple division examples above over a measuring unit that has been divided up into ten pieces.


..
..
..
.
.
.

[doublepost=1464928109][/doublepost]

in the same exact way as i'm saying "let's consider switching to base12 instead of base10"..

you're saying "let's consider switching to base 13 instead of base12"

it's just that you're saying it in a way that you understand so you're not even realizing you're saying it (point being, switching between bases isn't some far out concept.. we do it all the time.. every single day.
it's just the way i'm talking about it that makes it seem foreign and scary.. but for real, you switch between base10, base12, base60, & probably base8 every day.. sometimes within the same thought or sentence.. without even realizing it.. it's in the background and the switching is fluid and simple.

----
anyway, that's not my point in quoting you here

base13 is bad news.. especially for a calendar.

you would have no 1/2 years.. no quarters (as in fiscal quarters.. school semesters.. etc).. no bi monthly events (well, you could still do that.. they'd just fall on odd months one year then even the next)..

13 is a prime number... no other numbers will divide into it other than 1 and itself.. and as i've tried to point out earlier, the more numbers that can divide cleanly into a base then the simpler daily math becomes..

but yeah, 13 months is quite possibly the worst way to divide up a year.. it's entirely unusable (i'm exaggerating there) or- everything you try to do with that number will end up something funky.

It all comes down to what the basis of your numbering system is, and what are the prime divisors of it. Since 10 is 2 and 5, those, and their products (2, 4, 8, 16, 25, 50) have no issues with division. The nice thing about using even base numbering systems is that half of the numbers won't have that divisor problem (the even ones), and the rest are determined by the other factor (in base 10, 5). For 12, you have 2 and 3, so that is why the numbers 1-4 work so well with it. Other primes (and their multiples) below the base number have the issue, namely 5, 7, and 11. For base 10, those primes (that have the issue) are 3 and 7, which yields 3, 6, 7, and 9, and for base 12, 5, 7, 10, and 11. Since they both have 4 numbers that the system doesn't like, it's pick your poison.

 

[flat five]

yep, without a doubt, using an even number base is always going to be better than an odd number.

and yes, as you've shown, all numbers as a base are going to have problematic smaller numbers within it.. there is no 'perfect' number to be used as a base.

(i suppose 2 could be viewed as a perfect number in these regards but it would be difficult for humans to use since the numbers grow so quickly.. counting in base2 looks like -- 0, 1, 10, 11, 100, 101, 110, 111, 1000, 1001... so to represent the small amount we know as 9, you're already writing 4 digits '1001'..)

that said, it's a mistake to assume all even numbers are created equally.. or 'pick your poison'

i'm on my way out but if you have time and are interested:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highly_composite_number

12 is a highly composite number.. 10 is not.


and further yet:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_highly_composite_number

12 is also a superior highly composite number.. 10 most definitely is not.

 

[cube]

yep, without a doubt, using an even number base is always going to be better than an odd number.

and yes, as you've shown, all numbers as a base are going to have problematic smaller numbers within it.. there is no 'perfect' number to be used as a base.

(i suppose 2 could be viewed as a perfect number in these regards but it would be difficult for humans to use since the numbers grow so quickly.. counting in base2 looks like -- 0, 1, 10, 11, 100, 101, 110, 111, 1000, 1001... so to represent the small amount we know as 9, you're already writing 4 digits '1001'..)

that said, it's a mistake to assume all even numbers are created equally.. or 'pick your poison'

i'm on my way out but if you have time and are interested:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highly_composite_number

12 is a highly composite number.. 10 is not.


and further yet:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_highly_composite_number

12 is also a superior highly composite number.. 10 most definitely is not.

Like I was thinking the other day, maybe better base 60 than 36. Still achievable within printable ASCII without caps.

 

[JeffyTheQuik]

yep, without a doubt, using an even number base is always going to be better than an odd number.

and yes, as you've shown, all numbers as a base are going to have problematic smaller numbers within it.. there is no 'perfect' number to be used as a base.

(i suppose 2 could be viewed as a perfect number in these regards but it would be difficult for humans to use since the numbers grow so quickly.. counting in base2 looks like -- 0, 1, 10, 11, 100, 101, 110, 111, 1000, 1001... so to represent the small amount we know as 9, you're already writing 4 digits '1001'..)

that said, it's a mistake to assume all even numbers are created equally.. or 'pick your poison'

i'm on my way out but if you have time and are interested:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highly_composite_number

12 is a highly composite number.. 10 is not.


and further yet:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_highly_composite_number

12 is also a superior highly composite number.. 10 most definitely is not.

I thought about base 2 in my last response, and 1 is excluded from the prime multiples, to wit:
1/11 (1/3) = 0.0101010101 (forever, like 0.333333)

See: http://www.exploringbinary.com/binary-calculator/

 

[flat five]

Like I was thinking the other day, maybe better base 60 than 36. Still achievable within printable ASCII without caps.

yeah, i think base60 would result in even less difficult situations for general human usage.. or, much of the advantages i've pointed out regarding base12 instead of base10, i think it's feasible what you're saying -- "well, base60 does an even better job at lessening the chances of awkward numbers coming up in what appear to be simple calculations" (for instance, 60 is cleanly divisible by 5)

but in order for us to get the features we find very helpful in base10 such as the ability to shift a decimal point around when using a factor of 10.. i.e.-- 11.73 x 100 = 1173 ...that type of stuff (or the prefix setup in metric for another example)..

.. in order for us to get that with base60, we'd need to have an individual/unique/single character for each of the numbers leading up to 60 in which case, the number we know as 60 could be the first one in the sequence to use double-digits and be represented with '10'

said another way, our number sequence would be more than twice the length of our (english) alphabet : )

so when bringing that side of things into the picture, which must also be considered, it seems any benefits of using a base60 counting system are outweighed by the unwieldy amount of unique characters we would have to learn..

none-the-less, i still find it fascinating to think about using such a system.. i'm pretty sure i remember seeing an ancient system that did exactly what you're talking about.. i'll try to dig up a picture of all the numbers.

-----
hmm, ok..it was the Babylonians who used a base60 system.. their numbers looked like this:



...so there appears to be something similar going on with how we use 60 decimal based numbers to divide up hours/minutes/etc..
???
because there's sort of a base10 looking pattern going on there.

???

there's more on the subject here:
http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/HistTopics/Babylonian_numerals.html

i'll go read up on it now

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
[doublepost=1464999079][/doublepost]

I thought about base 2 in my last response, and 1 is excluded from the prime multiples, to wit:
1/11 (1/3) = 0.0101010101 (forever, like 0.333333)

See: http://www.exploringbinary.com/binary-calculator/

drats.. then no 'perfect' base... at least as far as i can imagine

 

[cube]

You can also use existing case-insensitive printable ASCII characters and prefix the number with one char that is not special to Twitter.

But I think that 2-dimensional Babylonian structure is easier, although the symbols need to be simplified.

For example, maybe combining Indian (prefix) and Arabic (suffix) numerals. As the Indian numerals would not appear on their own, it would not be ambiguous.

 

[Precision Gem]

Well, I think this whole discussion will be over once TRUMP becomes president. Europe will change to the US system or he will stop funding NATO and protecting them.

 

[samiwas]

clicking any? yeah/no?

Dude. Never going to happen. No matter how many 1ƐX line posts you make. It's dead. Yes, if sometime back in ancient history, we had started with 12, that would be one thing, even though we have ten fingers. But, we didn't. And you will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever get the entire world to completely change the entire numerical system that we use. It's just not going to happen.

Well, I think this whole discussion will be over once TRUMP becomes president. Europe will change to the US system or he will stop funding NATO and protecting them.

Bwwahahahaahha. That's pretty funny. It actually sounds like an actual post a Trump supporter would say.

 

[cube]

There're still cultures that use other bases. Civilizations come and go.

 

[Zagor13]

Okay guys, this is probably my angry 1 AM self again posting here, but this is something that has been bothering me for a few weeks now. I am posting it here because I know this is a website primarily of American people, and I don't know who else to rant this about.


Okay, first off, temperature. We all know what the three useful temperature measurements are. Only one is used in daily use, it's Celsius, and across the entire world. It is the most logical of the three, 0° is water's freezing point, 100° is its boiling point, every semi-educated person knows that. Only THREE countries use Fahrenheit exclusively, and surprise surprise, the United States is one of them. Why? Why is that necessary? Why use a system that is absolutely outdated, makes no sense whatsoever (water freezes at 32° and melts at 212°? yeah, totally makes sense), that is used by basically no one else? Even, excuse me for this term, stubborn countries like the United Kingdom now use Celsius exclusively and primarily. Even Canada, and its influence of the country did not force it to keep Fahrenheit. It annoys me because every time someone says "it's 60° outside!" I have to google and convert it because that means nothing for me, and I don't communicate enough with Americans to bother learning it. I could get away with it if it was something that was used interchangeably in multiple countries, but it isn't, it's outdated.

Second, measurement units. On one hand, you have the most logical system on the planet, the metric system. Simple, each unit correlates with each other, and there are basic prefixes which simply divide or multiply the numbers by multiples of 10. And I will be blunt here, the imperial units are more intuitive and are still somewhat logical. However, once you want to do anything slightly more complex, it becomes annoying. You can't do anything with a system like that. You have to learn the massive amount of words and how each of them correspond with each other. Imagine instead of having to use Kilobytes, Megabytes, Gigabytes, Terabytes, you would instead use Floppies, Discs, Drives, and Servers. It seems like the logical option, but they do not work together well at all and you gotta remember all of that crap. Once again, only the United States along with two other small countries exclusively use this system. In fact, when I thought that the United Kingdom was responsible for the same thing, it turns out it's technically the main measurement system of today (even though many people still use the other one), so I've actually gotta give them credit for having the guts to defy a traditional system. Every commonwealth country has adopted the SI, even if some like Canada still offer it occasionally. Seriously, why do this? Sure, I can deal with that, it's not like it's stupid or anything, but NOT when it's officially only used in a SINGLE GODDAMN COUNTRY (I'm excluding minor countries here because they are usually very small and have very little influence on the rest of the world).

Finally, this one pisses me off so much I just want to die. The date system. The entire world uses one or the other, either a DD/MM/YYYY system (common in European countries), either a YYYY/MM/DD system (common in East-Asian countries and some other places). Both are perfectly fine, as they represent a proper level of importance. What is NOT fine is when a single country just comes to troll everybody and bring a MM/DD/YYYY system, which completely messes up the order of the dates. The month, then a small part of the month, and then the year which the month takes place in? WHAT? How does that make any sense? WHY IS THAT NECESSARY? WHY THE ILLOGICALITY? I can bear with a January 1st, 2016 date system because it is closer to being a feature of the language, but not when it's a purely written form! At least use YYYY/MM/DD if you want to keep the M/D part! Seriously!


Okay, I understand that this was a bit blunt. But I can't accept that. I can't accept a country where there are people so lazy to adopt systems that are, by far, much more convenient than whatever is present, especially considering we are in 2016 and no improvement has been made to this date. And not to mention I'm sure there will be some idiots defending this system saying that "we are not sheeple to follow other people like that!". Well, uh, then you're sheeple to your own ****ing community. Any thoughts? Sure, you may call be brainwashed if that's what you believe, but I'd just like to point out that even though I grew up in a 24h system and I completely switched to 12h. And now I'm (partially) back at 24h. During this whole time, I barely spent any time outside. How exactly can you prove this against me if that's your intent? Anyway, any reasonable and non-biased explanations and/or defenses? Thank you.

I live in NYC and always use DD/MM/YR, always use Celsius, and always use metric system my entire life, never ever had a problem as most people understand me; once in a while someone (mostly ignorant or idiots) either pretends not to know metric or simply is dumb in my book not to know it and tries to say things such as ohh this is America we use feet, i don't know what is a meter bla bla; morons simply put. Fighting to be free form the British imperialism and still using their units haha the most disgraceful thing ever in my book. People that work in science, medicine, healthcare have mostly converted to metric units, celsius...occasionally in some idiotic hospitals they will still measure patients temperature in F but charted it as Celsius and height in feet but charted in Meters, why bother using feihrenheit and feet at all I ask myself. We are not idiots. Date is slowly creeping to DD/MM/YY or other way around. i never ever wrote it as mm/dd only if I'm forced in some gov form I have to fill out (government another dumb organization shows metric in some forms and in some uses the old...just use what the whole world uses Mr government don't worry people won't gang up on you....

 

[cube]

I live in NYC and always use DD/MM/YR, always use Celsius, and always use metric system my entire life, never ever had a problem as most people understand me; once in a while someone (mostly ignorant or idiots) either pretends not to know metric or simply is dumb in my book not to know it and tries to say things such as ohh this is America we use feet, i don't know what is a meter bla bla; morons simply put. Fighting to be free form the British imperialism and still using their units haha the most disgraceful thing ever in my book. People that work in science, medicine, healthcare have mostly converted to metric units, celsius...occasionally in some idiotic hospitals they will still measure patients temperature in F but charted it as Celsius and height in feet but charted in Meters, why bother using feihrenheit and feet at all I ask myself. We are not idiots. Date is slowly creeping to DD/MM/YY or other way around. i never ever wrote it as mm/dd only if I'm forced in some gov form I have to fill out (government another dumb organization shows metric in some forms and in some uses the old...just use what the whole world uses Mr government don't worry people won't gang up on you....

You should not write DD/MM/YY. You should write DD.MM.YY, DD.MM.YYYY, YYYY.MM.DD or YYYY-MM-DD.

 

[Zagor13]

To add that my son in school in Brooklyn was thought exclusively only metric system, celsius etc until 5th grade (I thought ohh good they smartened up and started switching...best way avoid teaching it in school) but guess what they introduced it back in 5th grade or was it 6th can't remember probably some jerk principal thought it would be of benefit or whatever totally stupid to teach all those kids the archaic system while they were just fine with what the whole world uses. but, I simply use what the world uses, I ignore (don't watch news) fehrenhets my phone is set in celsius, my maps in kilometers and I never use (no one in my home) imperial garbage

 

[yaxomoxay]

To add that my son in school in Brooklyn was thought exclusively only metric system, celsius etc until 5th grade (I thought ohh good they smartened up and started switching...best way avoid teaching it in school) but guess what they introduced it back in 5th grade or was it 6th can't remember probably some jerk principal thought it would be of benefit or whatever totally stupid to teach all those kids the archaic system while they were just fine with what the whole world uses. but, I simply use what the world uses, I ignore (don't watch news) fehrenhets my phone is set in celsius, my maps in kilometers and I never use (no one in my home) imperial garbage

Zagor as in the comics hero?
Back on topic, my kids are learning both systems.

 

[StarShot]

Okay guys, this is probably my angry 1 AM self again posting here, but this is something that has been bothering me for a few weeks now. I am posting it here because I know this is a website primarily of American people, and I don't know who else to rant this about.

Too lazy to read 18 pages of this thread, but if it hasn't been mentioned, what about the nautical mile? Not metric, and not the 5280' mile we all love.

For those who don't know, the nautical mile is based on 1/60 of a degree of latitude on earth. 1/60 of a degree equals one nautical mile. A very easy way to measure nautical miles in the air and on the seas. Never convert that baby to metric. Well, yes you could but why would you want to.

 

[torana355]

Funny thread, metric is certainly the more logical system and it is strange that the US still hasn't moved away from the archaic Imperial system, then again they still allow people to walk around with semi automatic guns in those parts so it doesn't surprise me.

 

[cube]

They US also has all those road signs with words instead of pictograms.