Comment

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

Sort:hotnew top

glitchdx@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ 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 ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ 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:
  
  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.
  
  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