The foot is no less arbitrary than the meter. If you are just unfamiliar with the unit and confused by the fact it’s named after something often close in size to it that’s fine, but keep in mind for a while a meter was defined as the length of a specific metal rod, same as the foot and yard.
Comment on Banana for scale
petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 hours agoI’m not really following. What, are we counting feet, then? Mine?
Feet are just really entrenched in the way Americans think about lengths. It may not sound like it’s abstract, but it is. If I said “yeah, it’s about sixteen hands long”, people would have to parse wtf I’m talking about, but then have to grapple with how long a “hand” is exactly and what 16 of them means.
Armok_the_bunny@lemmy.world 2 hours ago
InputZero@lemmy.world 1 hour ago
I was with you until you said the foot is no less arbitrary than the meter. The foot is just a useful size and changed depending on whenever the king decided. The meter was defined by the French using Earth. To say they’re both equally arbitrary is untrue.
Imperial units are nice to work in when accuracy is more important than precision. Want a third of a foot, that’s four inches exactly. A third of a meter is 33.333 cm repeated. It really depends on the situation which is more useful, but metric is more often than not the useful choice.
petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 hour ago
Yeah, they’re both arbitrary. You agree with me.
The “things” being counted in either respect are abstract and are only “known” if they are familiar.
SCmSTR@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 minutes ago
Depends on how into feet the person is