Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Huntn

macrumors Core
May 5, 2008
23,968
27,052
The Misty Mountains
As a Software Developer- I find YYYYMMDD very useful because it's treated as a number, and the larger the number- the greater the date.

20160501 is immediately recognized as an older date when compared to 20151015.

As to why people do mm/did/yyyy vs dd/mm/year- no idea. I find yyyymmdd easiest to process in my head, because I can quickly ignore the dates that don't matter.

Anyway- just my perspective.

I see your point. I assume that make things easier from a programming standpoint when comparing dates in a database. However when I use a date like that (mmddyyyy) in a file name, it is found at the end of the file name, so it would be of limited help in organizing files by date.
 

bunnspecial

macrumors G3
May 3, 2014
8,352
6,495
Kentucky
A couple of thoughts...first of there's a lot of discussion about Metric here and not about SI units. For many things they're the same, but it's worth noting that the SI system is more encompassing than any other measurement system-esp for derived units. With that said, even scientists-who developed the SI system aren't consistent about it. The pressure example I gave above is a good example-Pascals are the SI unit, although they are rarely used. Even most journal articles will tend to give pressures in either torr(esp. for vacuum applications) and atmospheres.

Second, I think a lot of folks don't think about the fact that the imperial/Avoirdupois system(I think it's important to be specific that we are talking about avoirdupois units in most of this thread) leads itself to using power of 10 units just as well as metric, although they are only used where convenience prevails.

Small measurements are probably where this is most common, in particular where thous.(thousands of an inch) are quite common still. I mentioned machining above, where technical drawings and measuring tools are often deliniated in thousandths.

Anyone(in the US at least, and probably England) who has done their own car work has probably encountered thousandths many times whether they realized it or not, although measurements are expressed as decimals of a an inch rather than directly in thousands. Clearances for parts are almost always specified in thousands(or, again, decimal portions of an inch), and feeler gauges(strips of metal machined to very exacting thicknesses) are marked as such.

When installing spark plugs in my MG the other day, I took the time to gap all of the to .025"(the book value), although it's somewhat common to say "25 thousandths." Even much newer vehicles, where few things have a gap that has to be adjusted in routine maintenance. My MG, on the other hand, being an ancient tractor engine design, also specifies gaps for the points(.015 used, .017 new), the valve to rocker clearance(.015 hot, .012 cold) and even the clearance between the throttle lever and the butterfly valve connector on the carburetors(.006) in inches. If you dig into the engine, you'll find even more clearances that are specified this way.

And, while I'm at it, I should complain about the fact that I virtually need a dictionary to read a service manual on the car. Why can the British use automotive terminology like the rest of the world? :)
 
Last edited:

oneMadRssn

macrumors 603
Sep 8, 2011
6,083
14,193
On earth, LBweight and LBforce are equal numbers, even though the units are different. Basically, something that weighs 50 pounds is also exerting 50 pounds force on the ground. This makes some structural calculations just a tad tiny bit simpler.
 

notjustjay

macrumors 603
Sep 19, 2003
6,056
167
Canada, eh?
I see your point. I assume that make things easier from a programming standpoint when comparing dates in a database. However when I use a date like that (mmddyyyy) in a file name, it is found at the end of the file name, so it would be of limited help in organizing files by date.

Because I'm stubbornly against just letting my photos disappear into an iPhoto library, and because I've been doing it for years, I keep my photos in folders with a date and descriptive filename, like:

2014-03-01 Venice Day 1
2016-04-30 Picnic in the Park
2016-05-08 Mothers Day Weekend
...

And so on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: throAU

AustinIllini

macrumors G5
Oct 20, 2011
12,699
10,566
Austin, TX
On earth, LBweight and LBforce are equal numbers, even though the units are different. Basically, something that weighs 50 pounds is also exerting 50 pounds force on the ground. This makes some structural calculations just a tad tiny bit simpler.
Yeah, this had me in fits in college. I have a Chemical Engineering degree and I still get tripped up by this. Metric is just a lot easier in that regard.

Somehow (I can't remember why)
F=mg (where g is around 32 feet per second squared, but a lb(f) somehow divides by 32 feet per second squared)

Metric is just so much easier. Heck, it's even easy to approximate weight as the acceleration due to gravity is almost 10 meters/second squared.

But again, outside the oil and gas industry, Metric is prominent in the American Scientific community. The average American doesn't care too much about all of that.
 

AdeFowler

macrumors 68020
Aug 27, 2004
2,319
362
England
I'm always curious why screens, be it televisions, computers, iPads, laptops, iPhones etc are measured in inches.
 

AustinIllini

macrumors G5
Oct 20, 2011
12,699
10,566
Austin, TX
I'm always curious why screens, be it televisions, computers, iPads, laptops, iPhones etc are measured in inches.
Great question. I'm not sure why that is either. I would think it has something to do with the markets they are selling to, but I don't know for sure.
 

oneMadRssn

macrumors 603
Sep 8, 2011
6,083
14,193
Yeah, this had me in fits in college. I have a Chemical Engineering degree and I still get tripped up by this. Metric is just a lot easier in that regard.

Somehow (I can't remember why)
F=mg (where g is around 32 feet per second squared, but a lb(f) somehow divides by 32 feet per second squared)

Metric is just so much easier. Heck, it's even easy to approximate weight as the acceleration due to gravity is almost 10 meters/second squared.

But again, outside the oil and gas industry, Metric is prominent in the American Scientific community. The average American doesn't care too much about all of that.

That's because F = mg is not the full formula, it's the simplified formula for metric. As my favorite mechanical engineering professor said 10 times a day, do the units. In metric, F is newtons, M is kg presumably, and g is in m/s^2. kg * m/s^2 does not equal N. The formula actually has a hidden constant that no one ever writes because it really doesn't do anything but cancel the units properly. The formula should be F=(mg)/c (where c is the constant).

In metric, the constant happens to be 1 and it has crazy mix of units to cancel properly, 1 N*s^2 / kg*m or something like that and thus nobody cares about it since divide by 1 doesn't matter. It becomes F=(mg)/1, or F=mg. This is intentional, makes all those force equations easy to do on any gravity.

In standard, the constant happens to be 32.2 LBf*s^2 / LBm*ft or something, coincidentally or not, numerically equal to gravity on earth. So on earth, where g=32.2 ft/s^2, the formula becomes F=(m*32.2)/32.2, or F=m. The force calculation actually becomes more difficult on another planet, where g is different and does not match that constant. However, it comes to show that the standard system was designed for structural engineers on earth.

Also, always check the units.
 

AustinIllini

macrumors G5
Oct 20, 2011
12,699
10,566
Austin, TX
That's because F = mg is not the full formula, it's the simplified formula for metric. As my favorite mechanical engineering professor said 10 times a day, do the units. In metric, F is newtons, M is kg presumably, and g is in m/s^2. kg * m/s^2 does not equal N. The formula actually has a hidden constant that no one ever writes because it really doesn't do anything but cancel the units properly. The formula should be F=(mg)/c (where c is the constant).

In metric, the constant happens to be 1 and it has crazy mix of units to cancel properly, 1 N*s^2 / kg*m or something like that and thus nobody cares about it since divide by 1 doesn't matter. It becomes F=(mg)/1, or F=mg. This is intentional, makes all those force equations easy to do on any gravity.

In standard, the constant happens to be 32.2 LBf*s^2 / LBm*ft or something, coincidentally or not, numerically equal to gravity on earth. So on earth, where g=32.2 ft/s^2, the formula becomes F=(m*32.2)/32.2, or F=m. The force calculation actually becomes more difficult on another planet, where g is different and does not match that constant. However, it comes to show that the standard system was designed for structural engineers on earth.

Also, always check the units.
Ah right, because

F(g) = (G * m(1) m(2))/r^2

That's right.

But the bold I highlighted is a Newton. 1 kg*m/s^2 is a newton.
 

Roadstar

macrumors 68000
Sep 24, 2006
1,723
2,190
Vantaa, Finland
I live in the metric system and while the Imperial system is somewhat annoying due to having to convert stuff, at least the conversion in that case is unambigous, unlike when we get to the abomination that is the MM/DD/YYYY date format. Seriously, who came up with that BS? Either go up the container chain starting from the day or down starting from the year, but for the love of whatever you believe in, don't have any second thoughts while writing the damn date. Due to this date format, whenever I see a date that uses slashes as the separator and where the day is in the range of 1-12, I need to rely on one or more external factors to deduce which item is the day and which is the month. In a perfect world we'd have nothing but ISO 8601 :p </rant>
 

Doctor Q

Administrator
Staff member
Sep 19, 2002
40,077
8,335
Los Angeles
The reason the U.S. isn't on the metric system is simple: The world didn't listen to me in 1999.

My suggestion was to get everyone to agree that children born in 2000 or later would learn the metric system as their primary units. They would also learn the U.S. customary units so they could translate for their parents, just as many second generation immigrants learn English and translate for their first generation immigrant parents.

This first metric generation would teach their own children the metric system and nothing else. Problem solved!

I'll suggest it again in 2999.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nütztjanix

flyinmac

macrumors 68040
Sep 2, 2006
3,579
2,465
United States
The reason the U.S. isn't on the metric system is simple: The world didn't listen to me in 1999.

My suggestion was to get everyone to agree that children born in 2000 or later would learn the metric system as their primary units. They would also learn the U.S. customary units so they could translate for their parents, just as many second generation immigrants learn English and translate for their first generation immigrant parents.

This first metric generation would teach their own children the metric system and nothing else. Problem solved!

I'll suggest it again in 2999.

Cool thought. And good reasoning.

But maybe by the year 3000 the whole world will adopt the universal idea of digits.

The average adult pointer finger tip is about 1 inch before the first knuckle. I frequently use my finger as a measurement tool when I'm too lazy to grab a ruler.

Therefore we could simply adopt a universal measure of one pointer tip. And portions and multiples of said digit.

One tip, two tips, three tips, half a tip, quarter of a tip, etc. that would be 1, 2, 3, 0.5, 0.25, etc for those who prefer decimal.

Half the world uses their fingers to add numbers anyway lol.

And the best part is we won't need a tape measure. Just use your finger.

I'm now sending in patent and trademark request for "digits" and "tips" as they relate to units of measure. Lol.

Hmm.... And for bigger measurements, we'll call 5 fingers a hand. Damn... Now I have to register that too.

That one will be a little trickier as 5 fingers is already associated with the unit of measurement equivalent to zero. (We'll see how many of you have used that discount method lol).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost

garirry

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Apr 27, 2013
1,543
3,907
Canada is my city
Cool thought. And good reasoning.

But maybe by the year 3000 the whole world will adopt the universal idea of digits.

The average adult pointer finger tip is about 1 inch before the first knuckle. I frequently use my finger as a measurement tool when I'm too lazy to grab a ruler.

Therefore we could simply adopt a universal measure of one pointer tip. And portions and multiples of said digit.

One tip, two tips, three tips, half a tip, quarter of a tip, etc. that would be 1, 2, 3, 0.5, 0.25, etc for those who prefer decimal.

Half the world uses their fingers to add numbers anyway lol.

And the best part is we won't need a tape measure. Just use your finger.

I'm now sending in patent and trademark request for "digits" and "tips" as they relate to units of measure. Lol.

Hmm.... And for bigger measurements, we'll call 5 fingers a hand. Damn... Now I have to register that too.

That one will be a little trickier as 5 fingers is already associated with the unit of measurement equivalent to zero. (We'll see how many of you have used that discount method lol).
The entire problem with this concept (which by the way, is the idea behind imperial), is that each person has different finger sizes.
 

flyinmac

macrumors 68040
Sep 2, 2006
3,579
2,465
United States
The entire problem with this concept (which by the way, is the idea behind imperial), is that each person has different finger sizes.

While diameters of fingers do vary considerably, the length of the pointer finger's tip has been 1 inch on everyone I've mentioned this too before. They watched me and said yeah right. Then I had them measure their finger.

While there may be exceptions, 1 inch is the typical average length of the pointer fingertip before the first knuckle on an adult.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost

bunnspecial

macrumors G3
May 3, 2014
8,352
6,495
Kentucky
Cool thought. And good reasoning.

But maybe by the year 3000 the whole world will adopt the universal idea of digits.

The average adult pointer finger tip is about 1 inch before the first knuckle. I frequently use my finger as a measurement tool when I'm too lazy to grab a ruler.

Therefore we could simply adopt a universal measure of one pointer tip. And portions and multiples of said digit.

One tip, two tips, three tips, half a tip, quarter of a tip, etc. that would be 1, 2, 3, 0.5, 0.25, etc for those who prefer decimal.

Half the world uses their fingers to add numbers anyway lol.

And the best part is we won't need a tape measure. Just use your finger.

I'm now sending in patent and trademark request for "digits" and "tips" as they relate to units of measure. Lol.

Hmm.... And for bigger measurements, we'll call 5 fingers a hand. Damn... Now I have to register that too.

That one will be a little trickier as 5 fingers is already associated with the unit of measurement equivalent to zero. (We'll see how many of you have used that discount method lol).

Hmm, hands, what a novel concept for a measurement unit.

While we're at it, let's figure out the length between the average adult man's middle finger to elbow, and then the distance from fingertip to fingertip with the arms outstretched.

Neither of those have really obvious names, though, that we could come up with...so maybe we can the finger to elbow length a "Cubit" and the outstretched arm length a "fathom."

We can have some other fun with this, too. Let's call 110 fathoms a "furlong" and we can call 24 furlongs a "league".

Let's throw some more fun stuff in, and create a standardized "chain" length. We could make this 10 furlongs long. Then, if we want to measure area, we could measure out an area equal to ten chains squared. A chain is awfully long, though, so we could break each chain up into 4 "rods." Since we've used up some other obvious things to call these, we could call this area an "acre.".

BTW, the above post is tongue-in-cheek but all of the units I mentioned with the exception of the Cubit are still in common use even in the allegedly "enlightened" Metric countries. The caveats on these, though, is that a hand is defined as 4", and a fathom is exactly defined as 6 feet. The caveat, though, with fathoms is that in practical use the length of a man's outstretched arms is often used in place. If I go to the hardware store or auto parts store and ask for 2 fathoms of wire, hose, or whatever else they have that's sold in bulk by the length, I'd be perfectly content if the person cutting it used the "arm stretch" method to measure. I was in NAPA the other day, though, and asked for two fathoms of fuel hose and the clerk(without my asking) proceeded to measure out 12 feet with a tape measure(plus the traditional "bonus" couple of inches that most places will give you as they'd rather give you too much rather than not enough).

Even so, acres are ubiquitous in measuring land area, although most folks don't break them down into their rod and chain dimensions.

Some of the above mentioned units are universal in the equestrian business. Horse heights are almost always quoted in hands. Furlongs are quite common in describing racing distances with some races(primarily shorter ones) being denoted by their length in furlongs. Even in a longer race(such as the 1 1/4 mile KY Derby last weekend) distances are typically called in furlongs during the course of the race. Wins and win spreads are often quoted in "lengths" which, in a horse racing contest, is defined as 8 feet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost

flyinmac

macrumors 68040
Sep 2, 2006
3,579
2,465
United States
Hmm, hands, what a novel concept for a measurement unit.

While we're at it, let's figure out the length between the average adult man's middle finger to elbow, and then the distance from fingertip to fingertip with the arms outstretched.

Neither of those have really obvious names, though, that we could come up with...so maybe we can the finger to elbow length a "Cubit" and the outstretched arm length a "fathom."

We can have some other fun with this, too. Let's call 110 fathoms a "furlong" and we can call 24 furlongs a "league".

Let's throw some more fun stuff in, and create a standardized "chain" length. We could make this 10 furlongs long. Then, if we want to measure area, we could measure out an area equal to ten chains squared. A chain is awfully long, though, so we could break each chain up into 4 "rods." Since we've used up some other obvious things to call these, we could call this area an "acre.".

BTW, the above post is tongue-in-cheek but all of the units I mentioned with the exception of the Cubit are still in common use even in the allegedly "enlightened" Metric countries. The caveats on these, though, is that a hand is defined as 4", and a fathom is exactly defined as 6 feet. The caveat, though, with fathoms is that in practical use the length of a man's outstretched arms is often used in place. If I go to the hardware store or auto parts store and ask for 2 fathoms of wire, hose, or whatever else they have that's sold in bulk by the length, I'd be perfectly content if the person cutting it used the "arm stretch" method to measure. I was in NAPA the other day, though, and asked for two fathoms of fuel hose and the clerk(without my asking) proceeded to measure out 12 feet with a tape measure(plus the traditional "bonus" couple of inches that most places will give you as they'd rather give you too much rather than not enough).

Even so, acres are ubiquitous in measuring land area, although most folks don't break them down into their rod and chain dimensions.

Some of the above mentioned units are universal in the equestrian business. Horse heights are almost always quoted in hands. Furlongs are quite common in describing racing distances with some races(primarily shorter ones) being denoted by their length in furlongs. Even in a longer race(such as the 1 1/4 mile KY Derby last weekend) distances are typically called in furlongs during the course of the race. Wins and win spreads are often quoted in "lengths" which, in a horse racing contest, is defined as 8 feet.

Yep. See standards at work. Based on what we already have built in to our bodies.

Who needs metric, SAE, etc. just stick out your hand lol.

Hmm... As for the whole date issue... I remember something about knuckles and fingers in kindergarten. I nominate emoji dates. One fist and 4 fingers is May 4th. And for years we can use Roman numerals.

For November and December we'll use 2 fists and either one bird or two birds. Lol.

Now there won't be any confusion. Put your fists, fingers, and Roman numerals in any order you like. It'll always translate the same.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost

Doctor Q

Administrator
Staff member
Sep 19, 2002
40,077
8,335
Los Angeles
The average adult pointer finger tip is about 1 inch before the first knuckle. I frequently use my finger as a measurement tool when I'm too lazy to grab a ruler.

Therefore we could simply adopt a universal measure of one pointer tip. And portions and multiples of said digit.
That's where this all started, when a foot measure was based on a typical human foot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost

bunnspecial

macrumors G3
May 3, 2014
8,352
6,495
Kentucky
Lol. We've come full circle. Suddenly the U.S. System makes sense.

Exactly, it's much more logical than a platinum-iridium bar that someone made two scratches on or a platinum-iridium cylinder then locking them in a vault in Paris. Laugh if you will, but both of these were-for many years-the definition of both the meter and kilogram were defined by these. The meter is now defined in terms of the speed of light(which has an absolute, fixed value now) and the second(which is defined in terms of vibrations of a ground state cesium atoms).

The kilogram, however, is still defined by that said cylinder, called the "International Prototype Kilogram." Things get really interesting(and can twist your mind around) when you consider that the mass of the IPK CAN NOT change because it is, by definition, exactly 1 kilogram. Even so, there were 24 "replicas" made from the same metal batch in the 1890s. NIST has two from this batch, one of which is the "check" standard and the other of which is our legal reference standard. The check standard has predictably decayed in mass relative to the IPK due to handling, but the US reference standard has also changed relative to the IPK. The same is observed when comparing others from the first batch of 24 to the IPK.

And, another fun one-the celcius(and kelvin) scale are now defined by the triple point of water. The triple point includes a pressure component. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the SI unit for pressure is the Pascal, and and the definition of the Pascal includes the kilogram. Thus, the celcius scale is also tied to the IPK.

One of the big subjects of discussion in the IUPAC for quite a while is how to define the kilogram in terms of a physical constant of nature(as are all other SI values) as opposed to an artifact(the IPK) but no can't agree on a good way to do that.

As I said, I love measurements, but my whole point in this rambling is to just to continue to beat home the fact that any system is just as arbitrary as any other.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.