Comment on Is AI’s Circular Financing Inflating a Bubble? [YT | 25'13"]
Powderhorn@beehaw.org 3 days agoI hate the metric system for an unusual reason: It’s totally arbitrary.
Internally consistent, sure, but SI is based on a flawed calculation of the circumference of the Earth, and as such, it’s not suited to modern applications, to say nothing of the weird units we end up with like c.
Define distance by the light-nanosecond, and now you’ve got a system based on a constant from which to derive everything else. Metric was a good first step, but measuring apparati weren’t up to the task at the time.
Little_mouse@lemmy.ca 3 days ago
The meter is defined by the distance light travels in a specific fraction of a second. It may have been initially defined by a rough estimate but it (and all metric measurements) are now fixed to universal constants.
Also the foot is currently defined exclusively as 0.3048 meters, so you are already using metric.
Powderhorn@beehaw.org 3 days ago
I’m well aware that the U.S. has been on metric since the 19th century. My point is the base unit should be sensible. 1/299,792,458 of a second is not that. If the argument is “yeah, but that’s what we’re used to,” then what was the point of the metric system in the first place? Nine significant digits in a denominator suggests a systematic issue, not sensible science.
We’ve secretly replaced your arbitrary base unit with Folger’s Crystals. Let’s see if they notice. Tell me why that definition makes more sense than an inch being three barleycorns.
bryndos@fedia.io 3 days ago
Genuine question, do you think seconds are sensibly defined either in SI or otherwise?
Powderhorn@beehaw.org 3 days ago
I don’t think there’s much way around seconds for terrestrial timekeeping. Defining the second by a round number of caesium oscillations causes issues with timekeeping on any larger scale. Defining distance is wildly different from deciding to ignore the Earth’s rotation and its role in defining days.