• Hansae@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    3 days ago

    Tbf as someone who grew up with the imperial system due to being raised by a British boomer its fairly easy if you’re familiar with it, I still often cook in imperial due to a load of old cook books I have.

    Having said that anyone who wants the imperial system in the modern day is a absolute idiot, metric is objectively superior.

    • neidu3@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      3 days ago

      A brit once told me that the imperial system makes sense if you look at it from the perspective of a peasant at the market - units of 12 was a lot easier to work with in the olden days because it’s easily divisible by 2, 3, 4, and 6.

      I guess it makes sense from a historical viewpoint.

      • Hansae@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        Its basically entirely this, its not for no reason much of the world wound up using something akin to it. Honestly for small scale stuff such as cooking I do genuinely quite like using it but especially in the digital age its simply become obsolete I can’t imagine having to code something which requires employing imperial measurements.

      • seejur@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 days ago

        I just wish it was always 12 instead of 3, 12, 1760 and whatever the eff they come up with.

        Farenheit on the other hand does not make sense at all

        • Knightfox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 days ago

          Fahrenheit makes more sense as a unit in use. 100 equals hot, but doesn’t equal death, 0 equals cold. In a lot of the world freezing is only kind of cold, not actually cold. Metric makes sense for science while imperial is more of a common persons unit; that’s also why Americans in science use metric.

        • Geologist@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 days ago

          Best way to use Fahrenheit is to consider it as a percentage of how hot it is. 0 degrees is zero percent hot, and 100 is fully hot. Beyond that you’re in super cold/hot territory.

          But yeah, Celsius is still better.

          • Holytimes@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            3 days ago

            Fahrenheit is better at describing weather in reference to human interaction with temperature Celsius is better for everything else.

            But that’s the same for everything imperial. It’s always better when it comes to actual human elements. How big is that stick? How many things in that piece of bread? How much weight is that rock? I need to move.

            While metric is basically better anytime you have tooling you need to be extremely exact. You need to know something that is less human and more mathematical or abstract.

            Well each system can do the thing. They’re not great at it quickly falls apart. That’s a big reason why people tend to say imperial sucks. Most people no longer actually interact with the natural world anymore. Everything is computers, exact measurements, quantifiable numbers from shops. The only thing left that most people deal with on a day-to-day basis is the weather and why Fahrenheit may be better than Celsius. It’s only vaguely better since weather is already such an imprecise thing that really doesn’t matter.

            Well yes the granularity of Fahrenheit is far more useful. If you actually want to be like specific about things Celsius when it comes to weather it’s close enough f****** does the job

        • prime_number_314159@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 days ago

          It makes a lot more sense if you know about chains. A chain is 22 yards, and there are 80 chains in a mile. There are also rods (a quarter of a chain) and furlongs (10 chains)

          So: 3 Barleycorn in an inch 4 inches in a hand 3 hands in a foot 3 feet in a yard 5.5 yards in a rod 4 rods in a chain 10 chains in a furlong 8 furlongs in a mile

          … And of course there’s the overlapping systems of length for manufacturing, agriculture, maritime, and horse racing, which have their own, separate subdivisions and largest units, but usually you can get away with just the nail, the fathom, the nautical mile, and the span.

      • Holytimes@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        Imperial is FAR more human and “natural” then metric. Metric fails frequently at being quantifiable with natural experiences and objects.

        But imperial falls apart the second your trying to do something at a large scale, super small scales or literally anything that isn’t “human scale”

        And basically every test I’ve ever seen. If you don’t have tools or some reference point, people will nine times out of 10 be able to more accurately gauge something using imperial measurements then using metric measurements.

        Metric relies far too much on reference in tooling, but that’s also its greatest strength. It’s absurdly, exact and reliable while imperial is loosey-goosey

        • la508@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          2 days ago

          And basically every test I’ve ever seen. If you don’t have tools or some reference point, people will nine times out of 10 be able to more accurately gauge something using imperial measurements then using metric measurements.

          That’s clearly utter bollocks