all 8 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 2 points 1 week ago (7 children)
  • [–] -2 points 1 week ago (6 children)

    What irony. In this case, literally no metric practitioners would use metric. They would use a mix of metric distance and imperial time which is just bizarre.

    Feet per minute makes sense to most. Meters per hectosecond is inscrutible. I have yet to see a metric clock in my long life and I'm from a metric country.

    Well, I'm going to call it a day, or to you metric fans, an 86.4 kiloseconds.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (3 children)

    m/s is a perfectly reasonable unit for speed and easy to visualise.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (2 children)

    So you would prefer to visualize 0.025 m/s to 5 fpm?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (1 child)

    Yes. Or go with 25mm/s in that case, but because metric is trivial to move up/down to different sized units that is simple to do.

    Meanwhile in imperial, fuck knows. 12 inches to a foot, 3 feet to a yard and then some number over 1000 yards to a mile.

    Even worse with volume, which fucking gallon are you using? There are different ones! It might be (vaguely close to) 3.5L, or 4.5L! I think there might even be another one somewhere.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

    So you struggle to remember there are 60 seconds in a minute, 60 minutes in an hour, and 24 hours in a day? Again, having never seen a metric clock in my life, I assumed people could remember imperial identities or at the very least look them up if they cared.

    Imperial evolved over centuries to contain units people actually use. I do not expect it to be used in science, Metric has its purpose. However, units that vary when it matters have value.

  • source
  • parent