Guy on the left, Tala Gray, 1.94m & 114kg rugby player. Gun on the right is 13 years old. (a.disquscdn.com)

{WTF}

1630 ups - 604 downs = 1026 votes

185 comments submitted at 11:42:08 on Feb 25, 2014 by katonryuu

  • [-]
  • The_Zett
  • 21 Points
  • 18:28:39, 25 February

At least they are logical

  • [-]
  • 3DGrunge
  • -24 Points
  • 19:23:48, 25 February

Huh. Imperial is more logical. Metric is simpler easier to convert.

  • [-]
  • The_Zett
  • 2 Points
  • 19:37:22, 25 February

How are imperial units more logical? Please enlighten me.

  • [-]
  • 3DGrunge
  • -24 Points
  • 19:42:22, 25 February

Foot and inches are more precise than metric measurements. The same goes for temperature. Fahrenheit allows for a better gauge of precise temperature.

More precise measurements are far more logical. Even more so when you realize that imperial measure is much easier to conceptualize. They are not based on illogical and unimaginable measure. They are based on and can be imagined by everyday objects in the real world. It is illogical to use something simply because it is easier to convert. It is logical however to use measure that is far more accurate and easier to visualize.

Metric measure is far more arbitrary and illogical than any other measuring system. Just because it was created to fit with itself nicely does not make it logical as it does not fit the real world very well at all.

  • [-]
  • TeutorixAleria
  • 11 Points
  • 20:10:04, 25 February

Centimetres are smaller than inches. Therefore more precise.

  • [-]
  • 3DGrunge
  • -11 Points
  • 20:26:07, 25 February

Yes for things smaller than an inch it is a better form of measure.

  • [-]
  • TeutorixAleria
  • 5 Points
  • 20:32:15, 25 February

And meters are larger than yards so obviously that means that meters are better for large things too.

I really don't care if someone prefers imperial but saying it's "made up" or "less precise" is bullshit.

If metric is just made up what is imperial? Do you think it's always been that way? Imperial measures aren't even standard.

French feet and English feet are different.

American ounces are different to British ounces.

You are either trolling or just completely ignorant of what imperial measurements are and where they come from.

  • [-]
  • 3DGrunge
  • -11 Points
  • 20:33:43, 25 February

Yes for super large objects metric becomes useful again.

The point of the comment is that metric is a made up measurement and saying it is more logical is stupid. Both systems have their perks.

However yes the entire metric system is based on a hypothetical measure and because of that is illogical as fuck.

  • [-]
  • TeutorixAleria
  • 2 Points
  • 20:37:52, 25 February

And prey tell what is imperial based on that makes it "logical"

  • [-]
  • 3DGrunge
  • -2 Points
  • 20:42:50, 25 February

Real world measure instead of hypothetical impossible to visualize distance of measure.

exception being weather. Fahrenheit is based on weather which makes it better for such where as Celsius is based on the odd scale of water freezing and boiling. Which makes it great for science when you need to boil or freeze something.

Anywho the point is saying either is more logical than the other is stupid. It depends on how you are basing the logic and which system you prefer. That being said I use f for wather c for cooking foot inches for measure except for computer paerts in which i use metric. I use miles for longer distance and metric when speaking of space.

I use lbs instead of metric weight as metric weight always bothered me.

I use whichever system seems the most comfortable to fit the situation with the nicest numbers avoiding decimals and fractions making them the logical choice obviously.

  • [-]
  • sukrire
  • 6 Points
  • 20:11:02, 25 February

I hope this is sarcasm, nut just incase its not, how the everliving fuck is an inch more precise than say a femtometer?! The word your looking for may be intuitive. I can see an argument for things being divided into sizes and shapes that appear in everyday life being easier to grasp.

  • [-]
  • JlMBEAN
  • 1 Points
  • 21:57:26, 25 February

I was holding out judgement until I saw his explanation.

  • [-]
  • digitalset
  • 5 Points
  • 19:52:25, 25 February

The usual measure of height in metric is 1 cm. I.e. 1.94m. The usual granularity in imperial is 1/2".

The metric measurement in this case is more precise than the imperial by definition. There are 72 height units in a yard for imperial, and 100 for metric.

Fahrenheit is more precise, in that it has a smaller granularity. But it's illogical. Water freezes at 32F and boils at 212. Metric is better.

That said, I am lost in height and temp with metric. I remember when I went up north and the news said it would be 15*. WTF, 15! I better put on my coat! Yeah, 60F doesn't require more than a windbreaker. Because Canada radio station in the UP of Michigan.

  • [-]
  • 3DGrunge
  • -14 Points
  • 19:57:56, 25 February

>Fahrenheit is more precise, in that it has a smaller granularity. But it's illogical. Water freezes at 32F and boils at 212. Metric is better.

No. Metric is nicer and easier to convert.

Fahrenheit is more logical as it is easier to use and is more precise.

>The usual measure of height in metric is 1 cm. I.e. 1.94m. The usual granularity in imperial is 1/2". The metric measurement in this case is more precise than the imperial by definition. There are 72 height units in a yard for imperial, and 100 for metric.

It depends on what you are measuring. For height of people imperial is far more accurate and easier to use and therefore more logical.

For extremely small and extremely large yes imperial sucks and is illogical. Except nautical miles they are logical and make much more sense than imaginary metric numbers.

The metric system is arbitrary and imaginary hence it is illogical.

  • [-]
  • spaghettipenis
  • 3 Points
  • 20:07:28, 25 February

what you have written is completely untrue, metric units are far more precise than imperial units, the smallest distance in imperial is inches, everything smaller than that is written as a fraction of an inch, metric goes from meters to centimeters to millimeters to micro to nano and so on. this is what precision truly is, therefore metric is far more precise

so that part of your argument is moot

when you say that imperial is based on real life and metric isn't that's simply a lie.

this is how it works: one liter is defined as one kg of water which exactly fills a cube of 10cmx10cmx10cm so I would say that the metric system is also easy to conceptualize, and is 100% based on real life quantities.

for example the water contained in a 1m cubed tub will be 1000kg, that took me 2 seconds to work out in my head.

even when it comes to temperature it's easy: 0°C is cold, 10°C is cool, 20°C is warm and 30°C is hot

accuracy is to do with how true a measurement is and has nothing to do with the units, so that statement is untrue.

so in my mind metric has all the positives and more that imperial has but also has far less downsides.

  • [-]
  • 3DGrunge
  • -7 Points
  • 20:27:28, 25 February

>this is how it works: one liter is defined as one kg of water which exactly fills a cube of 10cmx10cmx10cm so I would say that the metric system is also easy to conceptualize, and is 100% based on real life quantities.

Except a 10cm cube is a theoretical size that is based on an abstract figure.

>what you have written is completely untrue, metric units are far more precise than imperial units, the smallest distance in imperial is inches, everything smaller than that is written as a fraction of an inch, metric goes from meters to centimeters to millimeters to micro to nano and so on. this is what precision truly is, therefore metric is far more precise

I prefer metric for sizes smaller than an inch.

  • [-]
  • spaghettipenis
  • 1 Points
  • 23:03:26, 25 February

a 10cm cube of water is exactly one liter of water so that isn't really a theoretical volume.

  • [-]
  • neo7
  • 1 Points
  • 23:17:22, 25 February

You can't be fucking serious, right?

http://i.imgur.com/RjsC6ri.jpg

  • [-]
  • tartare4562
  • 1 Points
  • 19:57:59, 25 February

I can't understand how you can both say

> metric is easy to convert

And

> metric is less precise

Because, you know, the first sentence negates the second.

Unless you're just trolling, then 7/10.

  • [-]
  • Oangusa
  • 3 Points
  • 20:10:31, 25 February

What I think he is saying is that there are "more numbers" in imperial than metric. Consider Celsius vs Fahrenheit. 40F is 4.4444C, and -40F is -40C. For Fahrenheit there are 80 degrees in the range -40:40, but for Celsius there are only 44.4444 degrees in the same "range". Do you see what I'm saying? I'm not agreeing with his points on convertability or "logic" (whatever that is), just that there are more points between two values, which means Fahrenheit (as an example) can express temperature to a greater precision without having to use decimal places.

  • [-]
  • The_Zett
  • 1 Points
  • 20:25:55, 25 February

> Fahrenheit (as an example) can express temperature to a greater precision without having to use decimal places.

>without having to use decimal places.

But that is what decimals are for.

Things like 1/3rd and 1/7th are also able to express things to a greater precision, but those numbers are uncomfortable in general, even though they are more precise.

  • [-]
  • Oangusa
  • 2 Points
  • 20:37:23, 25 February

Right, that is what decimals are for, but all I'm saying is that for temperature you may not need to use them if you express things in Fahrenheit. Equivalently, for distances metric is more precise (there are more kph for every mph for speed).

My position doesn't have much strength to it though, probably just a habit to using imperial because of being American. I can't even find examples of temperatures that are better expressed in F.

It could just be personal preference for enjoyign that there are more points in fahrenheit than celsius, while also enjoying that there are more in kph than mph (in racing games I feel like I'm driving faster when it says 320kph instead of 200mph)

  • [-]
  • The_Zett
  • 2 Points
  • 20:43:55, 25 February

To be honest, 0°C and 100°C for frozen and boiling water are much easier to remember and think of.

Same would (as someone who is used to Celsius) apply to temperatures at all:

-10° - cold as dicks

0° - pretty cold

10° - cold

20° - nice

30° - pretty warm

40° - Damn hot


When I see temeratures in fahrenheit I think those seem pretty weird. I mean, if 60° is a decent temperature, it feels for me like it looks damn ass hot.

  • [-]
  • Oangusa
  • 2 Points
  • 20:55:05, 25 February

And on the other side, I so used to my temperatures that 30 and 40 seem to close for there to be a massive difference. Now, translating so I can see it clearly:

14°F - Sweatshirt and coat

32°F - sweatshirt or coat

50°F - would have to take off coat after awhile to cool back down

68°F - shirt and jeans

86°F - shirt and shorts

104°F - I'm not going outside, taking the day off.


So you can see from my perspective that I'm used to their being large gaps between two tiers of temperature. So I'd look at 20° to 30° and figure those were similar enough to not have to adjust what I'd wear.

This was a fun comparison, thanks!

  • [-]
  • xosmlp
  • 1 Points
  • 20:03:23, 25 February

Those sentences don't contradict each other.

  • [-]
  • F_CKINC_NT
  • 0 Points
  • 19:51:02, 25 February

You're insane haha