Comment on Converting numbers is easy

• lvxferre@mander.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Metric “dozenalisation” would be perfectly viable, and metric-dozenal units would still look nothing like USA units.

  I’ll use length for the example. All of them in base 10, just for clarity. (Also the name of the units would be different, but I’m not changing them for this example.)

  • metric-decimal: 10⁻³ km = 10⁻² hm = 10⁻¹ dam = 10⁰m = 10¹dm = 10²cm = 10³mm
  • metric-dozenal: 12⁻³ km = 12⁻²hm = 12⁻¹ dam = 12⁰m = 12¹dm = 12²cm = 12³mm
  • USA units: 1/1760mi = 1yd = 3ft = 3*12 in = 3*12*6 P = 3*12*6*12 p

  Are you noticing what the USA units do? They don’t stick to a base.

  source

  • glitchdx@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    your argument could be enhanced with the inclusion of survey units.

    12 inches to a foot

    3 feet in a yard

    22 yards in a chain

    10 chains in a furlong

    8 furlongs in a mile

    3 miles in a league

    source

    • lvxferre@mander.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      22 yards in a chain

      What. I had to websearch this because it sounds too silly, but apparently it’s true.

      But, really, even if it used saner numbers (like 12:3:24:8:3), it still feels nothing like a “metric dozenal” would look like. It’s missing the two things the metric system did right:

      1. All prefixes are unit-agnostic, like they were numbers. For example you can plop “kilo” = 10³ on weight (kilogram), length (kilometre), volume (kilolitre), energy, (kilojoule), etc.
      2. All prefixes must be an integer power of the base. For example you could make a 10⁸ prefix, even if there’s none, and it would be OK; but you can’t make, say, a 10^(2.447) = 300 one.

      source
• Siegfried@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Oh, I see you picked a pretty small hill to die in…

  source