I just wish we hadn't copied the US billion. The original British meaning of a billion was much more logical.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Why the heck does America still use outdated measurement and date units?
- Thread starter garirry
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I take a US billion...in gold
MM (Millions)
In finance and accounting, MM denotes that the units of figures presented are in millions. The Roman numeral M denotes thousands. Thus, MM is like writing
Last edited:
It’s the only one that makes sense. The US one is just weird.
But the dual labeling still puts both units on equal standing so people have no incentive to look at the metric unit. A transition process should include subtle hints that metric will be the preferred units going forward. For example:
Instead of labels displaying "2 FL OZ (59 mL)" it would be "59 mL (2 FL OZ)".
In vehicles with speedometer dials that show mph and kph at the same time, the kph would be in larger type, unlike the analog dials that some cars have now.
All radio, TV and movie media would speak and display metric more often.
Sports programs at all school levels as well as the professional leagues would expand the use of metric beyond just track and swimming. It would expand to boxing, wrestling, and all other sports that deal with weights or distances. College and pro sports are a multimillion dollar business that carries a lot of influence with their viewers.
As for all the challenges that are often brought up as reasons why US can't convert, how about using that "American Exceptionalism" that we hear so much about? I thought the term meant that Americans can overcome any challenge if they put their hearts and minds into it. But lately, I see it being used as a rationalization for not making progress when dealing with certain challenges in the US, whereas other countries seem to have made more progress. It seems that this term has come to mean "we are so exceptional, our challenges are much too advanced for you other countries to handle".
Last edited:
That's a matter of opinion, since plenty of products are already labeled solely with metric numbers. In reality the "masses" don't care one way or another. For example, most people ask for a small, or medium, or large cup of coffee at the coffee stand, and if buying bottle water, most won't look at the numbers indicating how many ounces, nor anything else. Analog speedometers show both MPH and KPH, and digital speedometers could show one or the other. The choice is left to the person driving the car. I do agree that metrics should be taught from an early age at school, and could also be used in all sports. But see...what is different about most Americans, at least in their daily lives, is that they enjoy the freedom to choose what they want. In the kitchen, most Americans deal with pounds, ounces, cups, fractions of cups, tablespoon, teaspoon/fractions, etc.
I have no idea what you are trying to say about, "But lately, I see it being used as a rationalization for not making progress when dealing with certain challenges in the US, whereas other countries seem to have made more progress."
Which nations around the world have (in all respects) "made more progress" than the US in a period of 246 years?
Last edited:
I see metrification already complete in areas that matter, and a great indifference to change in areas that don’t. The Cº vs Fº difference has been cited in this thread ad nauseum and the net of all that is that it doesn’t really matter much. But there’s another way to view all this: what if overnight all those nasty outdated Imperial measuring units were magically replaced with and only with metric units? So what? Does the US then get some gold-star award from an international metrification body? For me, the ability to stand out in a crowd and say: “Hey, we’re all metric now!” is something I, and apparently many others, just don’t care about. Certainly we don’t care enough to push for a change to something that just doesn’t matter. At all.
In all the years since you made this thread, has it become clear that the US’s defining cultural feature is individualism, self-righteousness, fear and resistance to change, violent unwillingness to adapt to a modernizing world, and complete inability to solve or even address any of its great mass of legacy problems? The early failed attempt at adopting the metric system was just a canary in the coal mine.
Last edited:
Well, it takes one to recognize one. You perceptions of Americans have lead you to write such things above. Some of us live our lives trying to persuade others to do everything in life as we do. Try to force your friend or even spouse to think and act as you do. The US is a relatively new nation compared to a lot of other nations around the world, and yet , the US is one of the most advanced nations around the globe. We use the US customary measuring system in our daily lives along the metric measuring system. Metric is used where it needs to be (medical fields, engineering, space, military, swimming, sports, etc). Some people use both, but in our daily lives we use whatever measuring system we want. Our governments nor anybody else is forcing us to use one measuring system over another. The labels for most international products are marked with both measuring systems. The instruction manuals from most products are written in English, French, Spanish, and other languages. You should take into consideration that our nation was formed by immigrants from all around the world.
Last edited:
You wrote this to someone born in Wisconsin, lived in 37 states in rural and urban areas, been the last domestic mfg business owner in his industry, served in the mil, & wasted years contributing to & fighting for social improvement in this country. Just because the experiences and trends here have led me to an unfavorable conclusion, don’t assume I must be speaking from a place of ignorance.
I just don't have the same view as you about US Americans and the use of metrics or not. The fact that both the US customary system and metrics are used does not make us any more advanced or backward than other nations. What you call, "wasted years" I "see" as life experiences (growth). Regardless of which type of social issue one may get involved with to solve or help others, what matters the most is not how one feels about one's deed, but the way the recipient feels about it.
Last edited:
USA using both measurements systems hasn't certainly not hurt us, just allowed us to understand past measurements against older products better. Most can relate to both measurements, someone from Canada doesn't care if they are buying gallons of gas versus litre, only is the cost the same? Same with weather temps. You get accustomed to both. Not like the difference with socket wrench size is that crucial, you end up using what ever works with what you are working on. What is easier to understand is always what locals go by, not some other countries insisting you have to use theirs. Let's use the speed of light examples, its either 300000 km/s or 186000 mi/s, does it even matter? I find it funny that the OP was Canadian, as I have plenty of friends from Canada and they don't care.
I have spent lots of time in Canada, except for Quebec. I was stationed at a military base near the border, and often drove to Montreal. Canadians would travel South to NY, VT, and other Northern States, while Americans would travel North just the same. I have driven West across Canada from Montreal , then South to Seattle and CA. I have also driven two times from Alaska though Canada, and from Seattle to Alaska. I have never felt that the Canadians I met and spoke with were any different than Americans. Also, during my years in the military I worked along the friendliest and most positive Americans of Canadian descent I can think of. These were civilians working in the Civil Engineers Squadron in Northern NY. I still remember these people by name. They spoke both Canadian French and English, and loved home partying and get togethers among friends and family. Back in those years we had a shop party every Friday afternoon at the end of the day. I don't remember metrics or any other measuring system being a problemUSA using both measurements systems hasn't certainly not hurt us, just allowed us to understand past measurements against older products better. Most can relate to both measurements, someone from Canada doesn't care if they are buying gallons of gas versus litre, only is the cost the same? Same with weather temps. You get accustomed to both. Not like the difference with socket wrench size is that crucial, you end up using what ever works with what you are working on. What is easier to understand is always what locals go by, not some other countries insisting you have to use theirs. Let's use the speed of light examples, its either 300000 km/s or 186000 mi/s, does it even matter? I find it funny that the OP was Canadian, as I have plenty of friends from Canada and they don't care.
Last edited:
Well I did ask hypothetically if one were in charge of a metric transition effort today, what would they do differently to ensure it succeeded this time, unlike the last time it was tried. But the responses ranged from unrealistic "mandatory immediate switch" to unhelpful "just put dual units on labels and call it a day". I was hoping to put aside jingoism and simply focus on the objective.
Many also believed that the United States should keep its particular system, setting it apart from other countries and symbolizing its status as a leader rather than a follower.
Last edited:
USA using both measurements systems hasn't certainly not hurt us, just allowed us to understand past measurements against older products better. Most can relate to both measurements, someone from Canada doesn't care if they are buying gallons of gas versus litre, only is the cost the same? Same with weather temps. You get accustomed to both. Not like the difference with socket wrench size is that crucial, you end up using what ever works with what you are working on. What is easier to understand is always what locals go by, not some other countries insisting you have to use theirs. Let's use the speed of light examples, its either 300000 km/s or 186000 mi/s, does it even matter? I find it funny that the OP was Canadian, as I have plenty of friends from Canada and they don't care.
See for me that is the easy one. I don't care which one I am using (just don't mix them). They could be called Red and Blue for all I care. I can look at a bolt and make a pretty good guess what size in either metric or SAE.
But with temps, I have to calculate it in my head back to F so I have an idea. But with meters, I know those are just a bit longer than yards so that one is also easy. But if you are going to tell me I am going to get 25cm of snow, I am back to converting.
Until people don't have to convert things in their head, it won't happen.
Based on this year’s continuing heat wave, I’ll avoid the obvious topic of Global Warming, while mentioning I think F is superior to C when it comes to descriptive temps that better illustrate the transistion from comfortable to uncomfortable temps. I can say 60s are cool, 70s are wonderful, 80s are warm, and 90s+ are hot. Actually it’s tough to distinguish between 90s and 100s, hot is hot.
In comparison 75F (24C), 85F (30C) 95F (35C), so I prefer a 30 F degree spread that describes this transition from wonderful to uncomfortable temps as compared to a 10 deg C spread.
In comparison 75F (24C), 85F (30C) 95F (35C), so I prefer a 30 F degree spread that describes this transition from wonderful to uncomfortable temps as compared to a 10 deg C spread.
Last edited:
It took me a couple of minutes to fully grasp these concepts.......... had no idea British were using a different meaning of "billion"... or maybe here in the America use a different meaning from the original one. Was totally clueless to this differences
Based on this year’s continuing heat wave, I’ll avoid the obvious topic of Global Warming, while mentioning I think F is superior to C when it comes to descriptive temps that better illustrate the transistion from comfortable to uncomfortable temps. I can say 70s are wonderful, 80s are warm, and 90s+ are hot. Actually it’s tough to distinguish between 90s and 100s, hot is hot.
In comparison 75F (24C), 85F (30C) 95F (35C), so I prefer a 30 F degree spread that describes this transition from wonderful to uncomfortable temps as compared to a 10 deg C spread.
Funny how that works in what's proclaimed often as an "illogical" system.
I've mentioned this several times, but the Farenheit scale is not arbitrary and the fact that 0-100º covers a range of temperatures we're likely to experience in the environment is not by coincidence. 0ºF was/is the lowest repeatable temperature Dr. Farenheit thought could be achieved in the lab(ice in brine) and 100ºF was originally normal adult body temperature(now of course a bit lower as it has been matched up to other scales). The end result is, again, 0-100º covers a range of normal earth temperatures.
Let's not forget too that the original Celcius scale was a mess, with water freezing at 100º and boiling at 0º.
Also, can we-again-remind everyone that neither Celcius nor Farenheit are part of the SI system? The SI scale for temperature is Kelvin, and for good reason(many thermodynamic and other calculations fall apart in celcius under fairly normal conditions-absolute temperature scales like Kelvin and Rankine are necessary). There are a handful of other units in common use even in metric countries that are not SI units...
A lot is confused by the word "normal". Are cooking temperatures normal? There are few things which are in any sense cooked below 100ºF. For example, eggs start to set around 142ºF. It isn't difficult to find locations where outdoor temperatures which often fall outside that range.
Temperature differences are the same in Kelvin and Celsius. There is only a shift of the zero point. In terms of, for example, maps they would be deemed the same scale.
There are, as you say, some measurements which appear anomalous. My favourite example is the British Standard Pipe thread - 1/2" and 3/4" are standard across a large proportion of the world. But the only real reason for that is the cost of change - they would have to be the exact same size but expressed in millimetres. There is a big problem in that if they are similar in size, but technically different, it opens the doors to many mistakes.
I still have no idea of what the “original meaning of the British billion“ means. 1,000,000,000 is 1,000,000,000 as far as I know.It took me a couple of minutes to fully grasp these concepts.......... had no idea British were using a different meaning of "billion"... or maybe here in the America use a different meaning from the original one. Was totally clueless to this differences
Until the 1970s, common usage in the UK was that a billion was 1,000,000,000,000 - that is, a million million.
To avoid confusion, primarily regarding finance, the UK official declared that a billion would be 1,000,000,000 - a thousand million - just like the USA.
What is a billion?
What constitutes a billion is a source of occasional confusion. In official UK statistics the term is now used to denote 1 thousand million – 1,000,000,000. Historically, however, in the UK the term billion meant 1 million million – 1,000,000,000,000 – but in the United States the term was used to refer to 1 thousand million. The US value had, however, become increasingly used in Britain and the Prime Minister, Harold Wilson confirmed in a written reply in 1974 that the meaning of “billion” would be thousand-million, in conformity with international usage.
The Oxford English Dictionary explains why UK and US usage differed.
The text of the 1974 Harold Wilson PQ:
This definition of a billion is now known as the short scale – where each new term for a number above a million is one thousand times greater than the previous one. The historical definition of a billion is now known as the long scale – where each new term for a number above a million is one million time greater than the previous one.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn04440/