Artifex
Familiar Face
- Messages
- 90
- Location
- Nottingham, GB
Regarding metric, imperial (and my favourite: The furlong-firkin-fortnight system), I'd make an entirely different complaint.
Metric (and SI) is wonderful because so many conversion factors turn out to be trivial. A full agricultural water carrier shaped like a one-metre cube will hold one thousand litres and have a mass of one tonne. It will weigh ten kilonewtons and exert a pressure of ten kilopascals on whatever is supporting it. If you hang it from a hook, it will swing back and forth once per second. If you drop it, it will accelerate at ten metres-per-second². All that is lovely.
However, I like the lengths of inches and feet. Using metric lengths to describe things always seems to end up with either too great a precision, or too little. If every length in the metric system were two-and-a-half times bigger, it would be much friendlier. Of course, it would be even better if the entire world changed over to counting in base twelve at the same time. Perhaps I should write a letter to the ICWM, and ask them to change it...
Metric (and SI) is wonderful because so many conversion factors turn out to be trivial. A full agricultural water carrier shaped like a one-metre cube will hold one thousand litres and have a mass of one tonne. It will weigh ten kilonewtons and exert a pressure of ten kilopascals on whatever is supporting it. If you hang it from a hook, it will swing back and forth once per second. If you drop it, it will accelerate at ten metres-per-second². All that is lovely.
However, I like the lengths of inches and feet. Using metric lengths to describe things always seems to end up with either too great a precision, or too little. If every length in the metric system were two-and-a-half times bigger, it would be much friendlier. Of course, it would be even better if the entire world changed over to counting in base twelve at the same time. Perhaps I should write a letter to the ICWM, and ask them to change it...