5 tomatoes
-
Liters? Pints? How are you converting from distance to volume?
-
I am glad someone else has noticed this. Why is my TV's power consumption reported in kWh/1000 hours?
Because your power is billed in kWh. Figuring out the kWh cost of a 77 watt TV is straight forward, but a lot of consumer labeling standards are about quick and easy side by side comparisons as opposed to perfect application of units. Easiest way to give a comparison that's accurate enough and doesn't involve odd numbers is to convert that way.
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote last edited by [email protected]
I count a flat 8.
-
Oh, get off your high horse
Your basic unit for speed is m/s, but for most day-to-day purposes you use km/hr. The conversion between the two isn't even an integer!
Not only that, but your system, by virtue of being decimal, inherits all the shortcomings of our quite flawed numbering system. You can't divide something by the second smallest prime number without breaking out repeating decimals.
In my opinion, a good measuring system would make up for those shortcomings instead. It should be divisible by at least the numbers you can count on one hand. Decimal covers 2 and 5, so ideally the measurement unit would cover 3 and 4. So that would be a base 12 system. Technically 4, being 2², would be covered too, so 3 would do just fine. Ta-da! 12 inches in a foot, 3 feet in a yard.
My ideal would be 21 though, get that 7 factor
If you like intervals of 1000, you'll be delighted (or mortified like me) to know that 7×11×13 is almost exactly 1000 (it's 1001)
You can also count on your finger joints (excluding thumbs) for base 12, too
-
Urgh. There's a unit for that, it's WATTS. That's literally 77 Watts.
Yea but people are idiots.
-
Urgh. There's a unit for that, it's WATTS. That's literally 77 Watts.
Honestly that's the most aggravating part.
-
Oh, get off your high horse
Your basic unit for speed is m/s, but for most day-to-day purposes you use km/hr. The conversion between the two isn't even an integer!
Not only that, but your system, by virtue of being decimal, inherits all the shortcomings of our quite flawed numbering system. You can't divide something by the second smallest prime number without breaking out repeating decimals.
In my opinion, a good measuring system would make up for those shortcomings instead. It should be divisible by at least the numbers you can count on one hand. Decimal covers 2 and 5, so ideally the measurement unit would cover 3 and 4. So that would be a base 12 system. Technically 4, being 2², would be covered too, so 3 would do just fine. Ta-da! 12 inches in a foot, 3 feet in a yard.
My ideal would be 21 though, get that 7 factor
If you like intervals of 1000, you'll be delighted (or mortified like me) to know that 7×11×13 is almost exactly 1000 (it's 1001)
Not only that, but your system, by virtue of being decimal, inherits all the shortcomings of our quite flawed numbering system. You can't divide something by the second smallest prime number without breaking out repeating decimals.
What's more 0.203 cm or 0.291 cm?
How about 3/8" or 19/64"?How far is 1/3 of a mile? 1/3 km is 333m. How about 1/9? 1/9 km is 111m
How long is 10 x 5/16"? 10 x 3.1cm is 31cmYeah, a foot breaks down easy in whole inches with many factors, but that's about it
-
In Sweden we say 20 000 mil. I always have to stop for a second to convert when people use km.
You should consider adopting metric and avoid these conversion steps.
-
...which is based on seconds, which is based on ??? IDFK (neither would they)
"The second, symbol s, is the SI unit of time. It is defined by taking the fixed numerical
value of the caesium frequency, Δν~Cs~, the unperturbed ground-state hyperfine
transition frequency of the caesium 133 atom, to be 9 192 631 770 when expressed in the
unit Hz, which is equal to s−1."
https://www.bipm.org/en/si-base-units/secondI don't think that was the idea when the second was created.
The solar rotation cycle is naturally divided into 365 rotations of Earth (give or take), each daily rotation was divided into 24 segments called hours, each hour was further divided into 60 units called minutes, and each minute was then further divided into 60 units which we call seconds.
In the modern era, we have refined how we measure a second by a very stable natural phenomenon, the emissions of cesium (which we also refer to as an "atomic" clock). But we got there first by dividing one of Earth's rotations by 86400. It just so happens that 9 192 631 770 oscillations from cesium also equals 1/86400th of one rotation of Earth.
Additionally, neither a "second" nor even "one rotation of Earth" would have any meaning to someone who has never been to earth before.
-
You'd think the Rockies would have a better record but they somehow still consistently suck
Management has no incentive to field a competitive team. They are the worst team in baseball, haven’t been any good since 2007, and they are currently 9th in attendance, in a not-so-huge market.
-
The just started counting with zero (fist)
That gets you base 11, which is what we count on our fingers in now.
They counted, at least for tallying, by putting their thumb on the three finger bones if the other four fingers on the hand. One hand can count to 12, and then you lift a finger in the other when starting over. That method gives you a count of 60'on your fingers. That's why 12 and 60 still crop up all the time.
-
Not only that, but your system, by virtue of being decimal, inherits all the shortcomings of our quite flawed numbering system. You can't divide something by the second smallest prime number without breaking out repeating decimals.
What's more 0.203 cm or 0.291 cm?
How about 3/8" or 19/64"?How far is 1/3 of a mile? 1/3 km is 333m. How about 1/9? 1/9 km is 111m
How long is 10 x 5/16"? 10 x 3.1cm is 31cmYeah, a foot breaks down easy in whole inches with many factors, but that's about it
Most people who deal in imperial units know off the top of their head that 1/3 of a mile is 1760 feet. They don’t have to calculate it. After a while you see that number come up often enough and it’s committed to memory.
I’m not saying that metric isn’t better, it is, and I wish we would hurry up and switch to it. I’m just saying that the numbers involved aren’t a handicap once you have worked with the imperial system for a while. If you have a set of sockets that you work with every day, you know instantly that 3/8” is bigger than 19/64”. Hell, even 5/16” is bigger than 19/64”.
And, you must admit, 333 meters is not one third of a kilometer. It is one third of 999 meters. The number 5280, for all its awkwardness, is beautiful in the sense that it is evenly divisible by 12, Meaning that it can be exactly divided into quarters, thirds, or halves without a fractional part.
-
I genuinely can‘t tell if you are being serious. Could you tell me at face value, I just want to know.
I don’t know glitchdx from Adam, but I say with confidence that they were being sarcastic, and laying it on pretty thick.
-
You can also count on your finger joints (excluding thumbs) for base 12, too
Okay so to fuck us all over we can go to base 9.
We can divide evenly by 1,3,9. But actually remember:
1/9 - .11111
2/9 - .2222
....
8/9 - .8888
So easily divisable right? /s
-
A template or jig, yeah. If I've got more than one part to make, especially if they need to match in some substantial way, I set up a stop of some kind.
At some point I may attempt to build a project to a scored storey stick rather than to measurements, but on the other hand I may not.
-
The only metric to imperial conversion I remember is kilometers to miles since it's pretty close to the golden ratio.
Even if you don't remember that the golden ratio is 1.6 and a bit, you can approximate it by using successive terms of the Fibonacci sequence.
1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13 ...
So 8 miles is about 13km (actually 12.87)
2.2 pounds per kilogram. For a rough conversion just multiply or divide by two. For a more precise conversation do the same thing, then wiggle a decimal and do it again.
-
I genuinely can‘t tell if you are being serious. Could you tell me at face value, I just want to know.
yeah, it sucks. There's no actual case for imperial over metric. it's just what I've spent years getting used to and I'm not changing now.
-
Taking it even further who the fuck uses inches or cms for vegetable cutting measurements anyway, it's like, one or two fingers thick
Do you want to develop imperial measurements? Because that's how you invent imperial measurements. Next thing you know you've got a cup that's really good for measuring liquids and a couple spoons you like to scoop with....
-
Most people who deal in imperial units know off the top of their head that 1/3 of a mile is 1760 feet. They don’t have to calculate it. After a while you see that number come up often enough and it’s committed to memory.
I’m not saying that metric isn’t better, it is, and I wish we would hurry up and switch to it. I’m just saying that the numbers involved aren’t a handicap once you have worked with the imperial system for a while. If you have a set of sockets that you work with every day, you know instantly that 3/8” is bigger than 19/64”. Hell, even 5/16” is bigger than 19/64”.
And, you must admit, 333 meters is not one third of a kilometer. It is one third of 999 meters. The number 5280, for all its awkwardness, is beautiful in the sense that it is evenly divisible by 12, Meaning that it can be exactly divided into quarters, thirds, or halves without a fractional part.
I gotta say, you make some fair points.
It's a lot of memorization that I simply haven't done and won't ever have to do.
The fraction reduction doesn't help intuitive thought. If imperial operated on 'significant digits' and marked any set or document with a 64th always as 64ths, as in 16/64ths, I'd be more on board.
We just need to replace out base 10 system of counting with base 12 and we'd get the best of both worlds!
-
I gotta say, you make some fair points.
It's a lot of memorization that I simply haven't done and won't ever have to do.
The fraction reduction doesn't help intuitive thought. If imperial operated on 'significant digits' and marked any set or document with a 64th always as 64ths, as in 16/64ths, I'd be more on board.
We just need to replace out base 10 system of counting with base 12 and we'd get the best of both worlds!
Yeah, absolutely, I’m not arguing in favor of making everyone do the memorization, I just think it’s interesting that it occurs after enough exposure.
I’ve often thought that if we’d have evolved to have 6 digits instead of 5, we might have adopted a base 12 system and made fractional calculations a lot easier.
