Look I get it, but also, I like fahrenheit and miles. They are more intuitive and closer to the 'feeling'. 100 degrees is really hot. 100 mph is really fast. Maybe that's my own bias from growing up with it though
Yeah, I think it's mostly just a familiarity thing. To me 0°C is cold af, 10°C is chilly, 20°C is nice and 30°C is hot. 100 km/h is fast but not really fast, though I'm probably biased in this regard from regularly driving on the Autobahn lol
exactly! whenever anyone says imperial units are "more intuitive" and better reflect "how it feels to humans", i can only think: obviously, you grew up with it. that's what you know.
no matter what measurement system you were raised on, it will feel intuitive to you and reflect how you as a human experience the world because you are used to measuring things in those units. having said that, i'd much rather we used metric if for nothing else than the ease of unit conversion.
When it comes to Fahrenheit, there is some merit to the idea - 0 to 30 is a small scale compared to 0 to 100, and unlike Imperial vs. Metric, Celcius has no base 10 system that makes any more sense than Fahrenheit does. . The opposite is true of kilometers and miles - kilometers is more refined since each unit is a shorter distance.
I'd prefer the Metric system, but Farenheit over Celcius for temperature measurement.
The fixed points (for 0 and 100) are much more logical though and can be used to accurately recreate the scale anywhere (well.. it'll be slightly off on higher altitude since boiling temperature changes but it's still not far off).
0°C = water freezes (= it's snowing)
100°C = water boils
meanwhile:
0°F = the coldest night Mr Fahrenheit experienced, thinking it couldn't get any colder than that
100°F = Mr Fahrenheit's own body temperature (he had a slight fever apparently)
How would you recreate that??
I am not water.
The temperature of water boiling is not a useful metric when it comes to the weather, as it's extremely far outside of where humans can live. Science uses Celcius standard, and that seems to work fine, but I see no reason why we should use it for the weather.
The temperature of ice melting, on the other hand, is hugely important for weather. 0 point is placed at a very important spot as far as weather observations go.
Can't say that of Fahrenheit.
We'll just keep things as they are becuase it seems to be working fine.
Fine except for the Mars Climate Orbiter.
The previous systems also worked fine in other parts of the world, but pretty much every country came to the conclusion that it's simply smart to switch to the metric system, giving up their own with seemingly random conversions.
And those that didn't don't seem to be suffering any ill effects as a result.
I think we can agree that the freezing point is super important when it comes to the weather.
So where would you place the second mark (you have to define two spots) so it "makes sense for the weather" (I don't see how it makes less sense for the weather than Fahrenheit, at least Celsius tells you if it'll snow or not while Fahrenheit tells you nothing) while still making sure that it can easily be recreated?
The temperatures are intuitive for me because Celsius is all I've known. The car going 60km/h or 100km/ h I know the difference and how it feels sitting in the car. The speed of wind in the forecast needs to be m/s to make any sense. Over 20 m/s I better tape the windows so that the storm won't break them
Out of curiosity, what would you consider "too cold to go out"? Not really about the metric/celcius system, but 0c is light jacket weather for me.
Anything below or around zero degrees is undershirt, shirt, sweater and warm jacket weather for me. Though it rarely gets colder than single negative digits where I live. I'll go with a light jacket from like 10-15 degrees upwards. I can't handle the cold very well lol.
That's an artefact of the "now".
In Australia we once had the imperial system and about a year after the big switch (14 Feb 1966) we became all metric like a mofo. Now 35c feels hot and 15c feels cold. Plus units of ten is so much easier than factions.
Ask the US military about the metric system, they've been using it since at least Vietnam, if not earlier.
As an army vet. No we don't. Never once in the military did I use Celsius. For distances we used both. I have pictures from inside my vehicles where the speedo was in miles.
Fair enough, I'm an Australian vet, and the US guys we worked with used kilometres. I must have generalised.i withdraw my comment. 🙂
Not only is 100C is also really hot, it's the boiling point of water. Now that's a 100 degrees that really stands for something.
"intuitive" in the sense you described just means "familiar". One feels like one. Ten feels like ten.
The magic of metric isn't that each base unit is somehow more valuable in metric. It isn't. One will always feel like one.
The magic is how easy it is to convert from the "small one", the "medium one" and the "big one".
Also, the convention of fractional inches is ridiculous.
It should be trivial to order 27/64, 3/8, and 7/16. Don't make me do that math.
Hard disagree on the fractional units. Using rational numbers for those things derives from the frequency with which people need to double and halve things in the fields that use those conventions. Doubling 3/8 to get 6/8 or 3/4 is much easier than doubling .375 to get .75
That one's nothing to do with the metric system vs imperial, aside from the fields that rely on the convention being largely the ones that created imperial in the first place. If they all switched to metric tomorrow they'd just say they need 3/5 meter spacing.
Does Germany use 3/5m spacing?
I looked it up and they use 2/5 meter spacing. Some other countries nearby use 3/5th though.
And it's described locally as 2/5 and 3/5, rather than 40 or 60 cm?
If so, I'm shocked, but delighted to have learned something unexpected
From everything I've heard it's a hodge podge, since the US, with the worst system, is the only one to use it consistently. Building plans would reference it by cm however.
What I was more referring to was from the perspective of the carpenter doing the work.
Fractions or decimals aren't specific to us customary or metric. You see decimal inches perfectly often, or at least I do.
Fractions are a more convenient way of dealing with multiplying or dividing numbers without a lot of mental effort. 1/3 of .125 is gonna take a second to figure out. 1/3 of 1/8 is 1/24. 5 1/8 units is just ”5/8”, rather than the .625 in decimal.
It's definitely less effective for numerical sorting in your head, but if I'm sorting screws or something, I'm probably gonna just look at them rather than compare the labels.
I understand the underlying principle, but I'm not sure if it actually shakes out that way for a few reasons:
If you asked a carpenter to cut something to 1/24", they'd be like "what?". Sure, the math was easier, but the result is unusable. No measuring instrument has divisions of 24ths. The person making a cut would need it in terms of 8ths, 16ths, etc. Any time saved at the initial stage is lost when they need to convert it again to a useable denominator.
Secondly, what's 3/32nds of 17/128ths?
The examples you give are harder in decimal form because nobody is going to make metric carpentry designs for things that are to the tenth of a millimeter, so 1.25cm isn't even real.
I admit, there are a lot of specific scenarios where fractional convention is helpful. I just personally think they don't outweigh the drawbacks.
It's fair to not be as big of a fan. I'm also not saying that rational numbers are more useful in every situation.
I don't think it's to controversial to say that it's generally easier to deal with rational numbers mentally than decimal numbers if you need to use fractional units. Metrics advantage is that you need to use fractional units less often.
Your example is indeed tricky, but it's still easier than 0.09375 * 0.1328125. I'd much rather do 3 * 17 and 32 * 128.
People making metric designs for things is one thing, but people in metric countries definitely get cabinets built, and those need adjustments that are definitely smaller than a millimeter.
I feel like this is all getting away from the original point though. Fractions are useful when multiplying and dividing whole numbers. Metric did not change how carpenters or craftsmen actually do their work, and how they work is the entire reason people use those fractional units.
Metric and imperial don't change the way carpenters work because in the case you mentioned of a sub-mm dimension, that's in the 64th of an inch range. Carpenters don't ever measure to that precision because of the fluidity of the material. Craftsman will at that point just cut to fit.
My point with those hard numbers wasn't that metric would make those numbers easier, only that your examples were intrinsically favouring imperial measures. Maybe it's easier to say:
What's easier to figure out, 1/3 of 3cm or 1/3 of 1 93/512 inches? You can easily construct scenarios for a measure that are easy in one and obscene in the equivalent. It's less about the notation and more about the measure. If you assume all of the initial measures are round in imperial units, then the math will automatically be easier. If your designs were designed in metric, they'll be round to metric. If they're in imperial, they'll be round in imperial.
And when this degree of precision is actually important, imperial craftsmen (engineers, machinists) already use decimal. A "Mil" is a milli-inch.
Anyhow, again, I agree that for some very specific scenarios dealing with fractions is easier, especially when you're doing any base 2 operation.
I just think that you would be surprised how infrequently the issues you're imagining would actually manifest themselves, working with intrinsically metric designs, and that you're underestimating the number of scenarios where not dealing with fractions actually would make your life easier.
I feel the same way about Fahrenheit, but boy do people hate it when you say it out loud.
I've never had to use Kilometers much but I'm sure I wouldn't have much trouble adapting to that as much.
How would you even measure "They are more intuitive and closer to the 'feeling'". It's not. You're used to it. No one else in the world that grew up with C is going to find F more intuitive. Neither miles.
I'm a European living in the UK for 9 years. I still don't know what a mile is. There's nothing intuitive about Imperial units, you're just used to them.
I also find inches easier to work with unless I'm making something with my 3d printer. Fractions are just easier when you're making something big with looser tolerances.
3 2/10 cm is easier than 3.2cm?
Doing things in 1/16ths of an inch is easier than metric for like woodworking and such IMO. Especially since most tools and materials come in inches here. Until you get into stuff that has tighter tolerances than 1/16th of an inch. Even then you could go to .010s or .001s of an inch but I'm more used to metric at that scale and that's what the applications I use for 3d printing default to.
1/16 of an inch is slightly smaller than a millimeter, you'd just end up using a millimeter or half again as your tolerance limit.
The big issue with imperial is all the fractions and strange conversions. On more then one occasion I've caught myself mixing up eighths and quarters, because my brain views them more as concepts then as numbers. Which is bigger, 11/16 or 3/4? Now, you'll get the answer, sure, but you had to think about it and it goes against the natural intuition that larger numbers are bigger. Compare that with, which is bigger 0.6875 or 0.75 and it should be trivial to see which is easier to learn and use.
0.6875 is basically a meaningless concept to me when I try to picture it in my head and what if you need to add it to another dimension? It's not easy to work 4 decimal places in your head. .75 only works because I automatically convert it to 3/4. Maybe it's just something that comes with experience but I don't have trouble with knowing what's what. If your not sure you can always make the denominator equal and figure it that way. 3/4=12/16 for instance. Easy math to do in your head.
Sure, but your measuring system dictates what lengths you actually design things to be. You would never actually use 0.6875, but if some jerk designed something with that length, it will be easy to tell exactly how big it was. If you switched to metric, your smallest practical unit for woodworking would almost certainly be a millimeter.
The problem is everything is already built using the imperial measurements. Even if we switched all the new tools and materials over to metric we'd be stuck having to do a bunch of conversions when we're integrating it into existing construction and we'd probably be dealing with that for the rest of our lives.
You're already dealing with it there's loads of stuff that's built in metric, especially everything that's imported. The question is if you want to continue using a system that invites mistakes in order to avoid the pain of switching. The pain will subside pretty quickly, and only come up every time you have to retrofit old construction and whatnot. As the years go on more and more things will be switched until it's rare to see imperial. I lived in a house built in the 1800s, but we still had modern windows and insulation because those things are obviously better and we improved the building when it was convenient and necessary to do so.
What about imperial invites mistakes and what makes you think that there will be fewer mistakes after we switch to metric and now have to use both systems and do messy conversions anytime we are working with pre-existing structures? Retrofitting old construction is basically a constant state of being for me and many others. What do we gain by switching to metric?
I once read a proper academic article explaining how Australia saved about 10% on average across their entire economy, largely from fewer mistakes having to be fixed and not having to maintain two sets of tools. However, I can't find it now. This random website will have to do. But essentially, pretty much everyone who switches assumes there's going to be this big cost and hassle and then it turns out they end up saving money and they just kind of quietly forget they ever thought it was going to be a big hassel.
I already don't have to maintain two sets of tools. I would only have to do that if we switched because I would now have to have tools with metric measurements (which would cost me $1000s) for new construction and my old tools for working on existing stuff.
As for that article I don't find many of their arguments to be very convincing especially the numbers they're using to determine costs. The article they used to get the $6, 100,000 figure for the cost of not switching is from 1915 and even allowing for that is largely nonsense. They mention having to educate on the imperial system. The only education I got about the imperial system was during wood shop as an elective and maybe some in math but that was more to demonstrate fractions and using rulers and such, the focus wasn't on the units themselves. We spent far more time learning metric during science class. The main article also mentions that converting to metric will save money but don't explain how this is the case. Then go on to accuse companies that have not changed out their tooling to metric in order to avoid the cost, so it's very inconsistent. The language they use is also very biased.
I mean, you're just going to have to take my word on it about Australia saving 10% until I can dig up that proper article, but here's another article that references American businesses saving money when they switched to metric.
Also, dude, you learned imperial in elementary school. You learned it so early it doesn't feel like you did any learning, but you absolutely spent time on it. I still remember learning all about feet and inches and how to estimate sizes using your body parts (which is a little absurd, considering we were children).
your tools and materials will come in metric when everything is metric.
doing things on 1/10 of an inch or 1/10 of a cm is the same as 0.1 inches or 0.1 cm.
1/16 = 0.0625
3/16 of an inch = 0.1875 inches
as in "1/16th" literally means "one divided by sixteen, so do extra math instead of just giving you the real number"
decimal doesn't mean, nor have anything to do with metric.
you don’t get it. [...] decimal doesn’t mean[...]
No, you're not getting it. 1/16 isn't a function of a decimal system. It's base 2. Primarily because you don't really deal with 1/10th of something, but half of a half sort of stuff.
1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16...
2^-1^, 2^-2^, 2^-3^, 2^-4^...
And base-2 functions make sense in wood working in general because of it's imprecise nature. It's more useful to compare things in halves. A 2x2 piece of wood is not literally 2inches x 2inches. Even in Europe you guys follow weird numbers for finished wood dimensions. It doesn't make sense to have such precision when nothing about it is precise.
So I have to throw out all my stuff and spend $1000s on new tools?
You don't work in 1/10ths of an inch. It's 1/16ths and that that's where the math ends. You don't need to convert it to decimal. Unless you're doing machining which you do work in .0001ths due to the tighter tolerances and I've already agreed you might as well use metric for that.
you're talking about two or three different, unrelated things.
decimals vs fractions - you're whining that 1/16 gives you more leeway, but too stupid to realise that 1/10 is less precise and is the same as 0.1
So either you're happy with less precision - and decimals are good, or you want more precision - and decimals are still good.
Again - absolutely nothing to do with metric. You can convert 3 3/4 inches to 3.75 inches, 3 12/16ths or 3 7.5/10ths of an inch. They're all the same thing and all imperial.
Tools. The topic is "using metric". Once you have all metric tools, then it doesn't matter. You're trying to change the topic to buying new tools. Unrelated. Using a tool vs shopping like a princess for new toys. We're talking about using tools.
but hey, while we're on the topic of how dumb you are, let's keep using what you say against you. You keep saying "it doesn't have to be that accurate" well, okay then. then get a sharpie, write the approximate metric conversion on the side and get on with your life. A 5 minute job for someone who I presume can write numbers and count to ten?
I knew there were more. What you don't get, what you keep missing, is that 1/16 is smaller than 1/10. that means your bitching about "tighter tolerances" applies more to dicking about with 1/16ths instead of 1/10s (which again, is decimals, nothing to do with metric)
If you can't have a civil conversation without insults I'm not going to bother with you anymore. We're talking about units of measurement, there's no reason to be an asshole. Go fuck yourself.
yes, we are talking about units of measurement, which is why you talking about fractions is irrelevant. Thank you for agreeing with me.
Yeah, and the benefits of switching does not out weigh the costs, like redoing all the signage and re-educating everyone and inevitable higher accident rate.
Look I get it, but also, I like fahrenheit and miles. They are more intuitive and closer to the 'feeling'. 100 degrees is really hot. 100 mph is really fast. Maybe that's my own bias from growing up with it though
Yeah, I think it's mostly just a familiarity thing. To me 0°C is cold af, 10°C is chilly, 20°C is nice and 30°C is hot. 100 km/h is fast but not really fast, though I'm probably biased in this regard from regularly driving on the Autobahn lol
exactly! whenever anyone says imperial units are "more intuitive" and better reflect "how it feels to humans", i can only think: obviously, you grew up with it. that's what you know.
no matter what measurement system you were raised on, it will feel intuitive to you and reflect how you as a human experience the world because you are used to measuring things in those units. having said that, i'd much rather we used metric if for nothing else than the ease of unit conversion.
When it comes to Fahrenheit, there is some merit to the idea - 0 to 30 is a small scale compared to 0 to 100, and unlike Imperial vs. Metric, Celcius has no base 10 system that makes any more sense than Fahrenheit does. . The opposite is true of kilometers and miles - kilometers is more refined since each unit is a shorter distance.
I'd prefer the Metric system, but Farenheit over Celcius for temperature measurement.
The fixed points (for 0 and 100) are much more logical though and can be used to accurately recreate the scale anywhere (well.. it'll be slightly off on higher altitude since boiling temperature changes but it's still not far off).
0°C = water freezes (= it's snowing)
100°C = water boils
meanwhile:
0°F = the coldest night Mr Fahrenheit experienced, thinking it couldn't get any colder than that
100°F = Mr Fahrenheit's own body temperature (he had a slight fever apparently)
How would you recreate that??
I am not water.
The temperature of water boiling is not a useful metric when it comes to the weather, as it's extremely far outside of where humans can live. Science uses Celcius standard, and that seems to work fine, but I see no reason why we should use it for the weather.
The temperature of ice melting, on the other hand, is hugely important for weather. 0 point is placed at a very important spot as far as weather observations go.
Can't say that of Fahrenheit.
We'll just keep things as they are becuase it seems to be working fine.
Fine except for the Mars Climate Orbiter.
The previous systems also worked fine in other parts of the world, but pretty much every country came to the conclusion that it's simply smart to switch to the metric system, giving up their own with seemingly random conversions.
And those that didn't don't seem to be suffering any ill effects as a result.
I think we can agree that the freezing point is super important when it comes to the weather.
So where would you place the second mark (you have to define two spots) so it "makes sense for the weather" (I don't see how it makes less sense for the weather than Fahrenheit, at least Celsius tells you if it'll snow or not while Fahrenheit tells you nothing) while still making sure that it can easily be recreated?
The temperatures are intuitive for me because Celsius is all I've known. The car going 60km/h or 100km/ h I know the difference and how it feels sitting in the car. The speed of wind in the forecast needs to be m/s to make any sense. Over 20 m/s I better tape the windows so that the storm won't break them
Out of curiosity, what would you consider "too cold to go out"? Not really about the metric/celcius system, but 0c is light jacket weather for me.
Anything below or around zero degrees is undershirt, shirt, sweater and warm jacket weather for me. Though it rarely gets colder than single negative digits where I live. I'll go with a light jacket from like 10-15 degrees upwards. I can't handle the cold very well lol.
That's an artefact of the "now".
In Australia we once had the imperial system and about a year after the big switch (14 Feb 1966) we became all metric like a mofo. Now 35c feels hot and 15c feels cold. Plus units of ten is so much easier than factions.
Ask the US military about the metric system, they've been using it since at least Vietnam, if not earlier.
As an army vet. No we don't. Never once in the military did I use Celsius. For distances we used both. I have pictures from inside my vehicles where the speedo was in miles.
Fair enough, I'm an Australian vet, and the US guys we worked with used kilometres. I must have generalised.i withdraw my comment. 🙂
Not only is 100C is also really hot, it's the boiling point of water. Now that's a 100 degrees that really stands for something.
"intuitive" in the sense you described just means "familiar". One feels like one. Ten feels like ten.
The magic of metric isn't that each base unit is somehow more valuable in metric. It isn't. One will always feel like one.
The magic is how easy it is to convert from the "small one", the "medium one" and the "big one".
Also, the convention of fractional inches is ridiculous.
It should be trivial to order 27/64, 3/8, and 7/16. Don't make me do that math.
Hard disagree on the fractional units. Using rational numbers for those things derives from the frequency with which people need to double and halve things in the fields that use those conventions. Doubling 3/8 to get 6/8 or 3/4 is much easier than doubling .375 to get .75
That one's nothing to do with the metric system vs imperial, aside from the fields that rely on the convention being largely the ones that created imperial in the first place. If they all switched to metric tomorrow they'd just say they need 3/5 meter spacing.
Does Germany use 3/5m spacing?
I looked it up and they use 2/5 meter spacing. Some other countries nearby use 3/5th though.
And it's described locally as 2/5 and 3/5, rather than 40 or 60 cm?
If so, I'm shocked, but delighted to have learned something unexpected
From everything I've heard it's a hodge podge, since the US, with the worst system, is the only one to use it consistently. Building plans would reference it by cm however.
What I was more referring to was from the perspective of the carpenter doing the work.
Fractions or decimals aren't specific to us customary or metric. You see decimal inches perfectly often, or at least I do.
Fractions are a more convenient way of dealing with multiplying or dividing numbers without a lot of mental effort. 1/3 of .125 is gonna take a second to figure out. 1/3 of 1/8 is 1/24. 5 1/8 units is just ”5/8”, rather than the .625 in decimal.
It's definitely less effective for numerical sorting in your head, but if I'm sorting screws or something, I'm probably gonna just look at them rather than compare the labels.
I understand the underlying principle, but I'm not sure if it actually shakes out that way for a few reasons:
If you asked a carpenter to cut something to 1/24", they'd be like "what?". Sure, the math was easier, but the result is unusable. No measuring instrument has divisions of 24ths. The person making a cut would need it in terms of 8ths, 16ths, etc. Any time saved at the initial stage is lost when they need to convert it again to a useable denominator.
Secondly, what's 3/32nds of 17/128ths?
The examples you give are harder in decimal form because nobody is going to make metric carpentry designs for things that are to the tenth of a millimeter, so 1.25cm isn't even real.
I admit, there are a lot of specific scenarios where fractional convention is helpful. I just personally think they don't outweigh the drawbacks.
It's fair to not be as big of a fan. I'm also not saying that rational numbers are more useful in every situation.
I don't think it's to controversial to say that it's generally easier to deal with rational numbers mentally than decimal numbers if you need to use fractional units. Metrics advantage is that you need to use fractional units less often.
Your example is indeed tricky, but it's still easier than 0.09375 * 0.1328125. I'd much rather do 3 * 17 and 32 * 128.
People making metric designs for things is one thing, but people in metric countries definitely get cabinets built, and those need adjustments that are definitely smaller than a millimeter.
I feel like this is all getting away from the original point though. Fractions are useful when multiplying and dividing whole numbers. Metric did not change how carpenters or craftsmen actually do their work, and how they work is the entire reason people use those fractional units.
Metric and imperial don't change the way carpenters work because in the case you mentioned of a sub-mm dimension, that's in the 64th of an inch range. Carpenters don't ever measure to that precision because of the fluidity of the material. Craftsman will at that point just cut to fit.
My point with those hard numbers wasn't that metric would make those numbers easier, only that your examples were intrinsically favouring imperial measures. Maybe it's easier to say:
What's easier to figure out, 1/3 of 3cm or 1/3 of 1 93/512 inches? You can easily construct scenarios for a measure that are easy in one and obscene in the equivalent. It's less about the notation and more about the measure. If you assume all of the initial measures are round in imperial units, then the math will automatically be easier. If your designs were designed in metric, they'll be round to metric. If they're in imperial, they'll be round in imperial.
And when this degree of precision is actually important, imperial craftsmen (engineers, machinists) already use decimal. A "Mil" is a milli-inch.
Anyhow, again, I agree that for some very specific scenarios dealing with fractions is easier, especially when you're doing any base 2 operation.
I just think that you would be surprised how infrequently the issues you're imagining would actually manifest themselves, working with intrinsically metric designs, and that you're underestimating the number of scenarios where not dealing with fractions actually would make your life easier.
I feel the same way about Fahrenheit, but boy do people hate it when you say it out loud.
I've never had to use Kilometers much but I'm sure I wouldn't have much trouble adapting to that as much.
How would you even measure "They are more intuitive and closer to the 'feeling'". It's not. You're used to it. No one else in the world that grew up with C is going to find F more intuitive. Neither miles.
I'm a European living in the UK for 9 years. I still don't know what a mile is. There's nothing intuitive about Imperial units, you're just used to them.
I also find inches easier to work with unless I'm making something with my 3d printer. Fractions are just easier when you're making something big with looser tolerances.
3 2/10 cm is easier than 3.2cm?
Doing things in 1/16ths of an inch is easier than metric for like woodworking and such IMO. Especially since most tools and materials come in inches here. Until you get into stuff that has tighter tolerances than 1/16th of an inch. Even then you could go to .010s or .001s of an inch but I'm more used to metric at that scale and that's what the applications I use for 3d printing default to.
1/16 of an inch is slightly smaller than a millimeter, you'd just end up using a millimeter or half again as your tolerance limit.
The big issue with imperial is all the fractions and strange conversions. On more then one occasion I've caught myself mixing up eighths and quarters, because my brain views them more as concepts then as numbers. Which is bigger, 11/16 or 3/4? Now, you'll get the answer, sure, but you had to think about it and it goes against the natural intuition that larger numbers are bigger. Compare that with, which is bigger 0.6875 or 0.75 and it should be trivial to see which is easier to learn and use.
0.6875 is basically a meaningless concept to me when I try to picture it in my head and what if you need to add it to another dimension? It's not easy to work 4 decimal places in your head. .75 only works because I automatically convert it to 3/4. Maybe it's just something that comes with experience but I don't have trouble with knowing what's what. If your not sure you can always make the denominator equal and figure it that way. 3/4=12/16 for instance. Easy math to do in your head.
Sure, but your measuring system dictates what lengths you actually design things to be. You would never actually use 0.6875, but if some jerk designed something with that length, it will be easy to tell exactly how big it was. If you switched to metric, your smallest practical unit for woodworking would almost certainly be a millimeter.
The problem is everything is already built using the imperial measurements. Even if we switched all the new tools and materials over to metric we'd be stuck having to do a bunch of conversions when we're integrating it into existing construction and we'd probably be dealing with that for the rest of our lives.
You're already dealing with it there's loads of stuff that's built in metric, especially everything that's imported. The question is if you want to continue using a system that invites mistakes in order to avoid the pain of switching. The pain will subside pretty quickly, and only come up every time you have to retrofit old construction and whatnot. As the years go on more and more things will be switched until it's rare to see imperial. I lived in a house built in the 1800s, but we still had modern windows and insulation because those things are obviously better and we improved the building when it was convenient and necessary to do so.
What about imperial invites mistakes and what makes you think that there will be fewer mistakes after we switch to metric and now have to use both systems and do messy conversions anytime we are working with pre-existing structures? Retrofitting old construction is basically a constant state of being for me and many others. What do we gain by switching to metric?
I once read a proper academic article explaining how Australia saved about 10% on average across their entire economy, largely from fewer mistakes having to be fixed and not having to maintain two sets of tools. However, I can't find it now. This random website will have to do. But essentially, pretty much everyone who switches assumes there's going to be this big cost and hassle and then it turns out they end up saving money and they just kind of quietly forget they ever thought it was going to be a big hassel.
I already don't have to maintain two sets of tools. I would only have to do that if we switched because I would now have to have tools with metric measurements (which would cost me $1000s) for new construction and my old tools for working on existing stuff.
As for that article I don't find many of their arguments to be very convincing especially the numbers they're using to determine costs. The article they used to get the $6, 100,000 figure for the cost of not switching is from 1915 and even allowing for that is largely nonsense. They mention having to educate on the imperial system. The only education I got about the imperial system was during wood shop as an elective and maybe some in math but that was more to demonstrate fractions and using rulers and such, the focus wasn't on the units themselves. We spent far more time learning metric during science class. The main article also mentions that converting to metric will save money but don't explain how this is the case. Then go on to accuse companies that have not changed out their tooling to metric in order to avoid the cost, so it's very inconsistent. The language they use is also very biased.
I mean, you're just going to have to take my word on it about Australia saving 10% until I can dig up that proper article, but here's another article that references American businesses saving money when they switched to metric.
Also, dude, you learned imperial in elementary school. You learned it so early it doesn't feel like you did any learning, but you absolutely spent time on it. I still remember learning all about feet and inches and how to estimate sizes using your body parts (which is a little absurd, considering we were children).
you don't get it.
your tools and materials will come in metric when everything is metric.
doing things on 1/10 of an inch or 1/10 of a cm is the same as 0.1 inches or 0.1 cm.
1/16 = 0.0625
3/16 of an inch = 0.1875 inches
as in "1/16th" literally means "one divided by sixteen, so do extra math instead of just giving you the real number"
decimal doesn't mean, nor have anything to do with metric.
No, you're not getting it. 1/16 isn't a function of a decimal system. It's base 2. Primarily because you don't really deal with 1/10th of something, but half of a half sort of stuff.
1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16...
2^-1^, 2^-2^, 2^-3^, 2^-4^...
And base-2 functions make sense in wood working in general because of it's imprecise nature. It's more useful to compare things in halves. A 2x2 piece of wood is not literally 2inches x 2inches. Even in Europe you guys follow weird numbers for finished wood dimensions. It doesn't make sense to have such precision when nothing about it is precise.
So I have to throw out all my stuff and spend $1000s on new tools?
You don't work in 1/10ths of an inch. It's 1/16ths and that that's where the math ends. You don't need to convert it to decimal. Unless you're doing machining which you do work in .0001ths due to the tighter tolerances and I've already agreed you might as well use metric for that.
you're talking about two or three different, unrelated things.
So either you're happy with less precision - and decimals are good, or you want more precision - and decimals are still good.
Again - absolutely nothing to do with metric. You can convert 3 3/4 inches to 3.75 inches, 3 12/16ths or 3 7.5/10ths of an inch. They're all the same thing and all imperial.
Tools. The topic is "using metric". Once you have all metric tools, then it doesn't matter. You're trying to change the topic to buying new tools. Unrelated. Using a tool vs shopping like a princess for new toys. We're talking about using tools.
but hey, while we're on the topic of how dumb you are, let's keep using what you say against you. You keep saying "it doesn't have to be that accurate" well, okay then. then get a sharpie, write the approximate metric conversion on the side and get on with your life. A 5 minute job for someone who I presume can write numbers and count to ten?
I knew there were more. What you don't get, what you keep missing, is that 1/16 is smaller than 1/10. that means your bitching about "tighter tolerances" applies more to dicking about with 1/16ths instead of 1/10s (which again, is decimals, nothing to do with metric)
If you can't have a civil conversation without insults I'm not going to bother with you anymore. We're talking about units of measurement, there's no reason to be an asshole. Go fuck yourself.
yes, we are talking about units of measurement, which is why you talking about fractions is irrelevant. Thank you for agreeing with me.
jeezus chris on a cracker you're a slow one.
Yeah, and the benefits of switching does not out weigh the costs, like redoing all the signage and re-educating everyone and inevitable higher accident rate.