even the metric based country has to deal with american dogshit measuring system

or least use decimal like how you measure bullets, "point seventy five inch" sounds more humane than "it's seven-eighths of an inch"

like, wtf is 7/8 inch, how do you even calculate that, just say 22mm like normal human being ffs

>>2928508 (OP)
>wtf is 7/8 inch
>how do you even calculate that
week b8

>>2928508 (OP)
>"point seventy five inch"
this is an american (to be precise: uneducated) way to speak.
'seventy' means seven tens
tens is the column second left of the decimal point.
to say 'point seventy' therefore is not correct. it has no real meaning.
try one of these:
'point seven five' ('spelling' out the numbers)
'seventy five hundredths' (this is describing a fraction)
'seventy five hundredths' (this is clarifying multiples - same as you might say seventy million - although in this instance it is identical to above)

>>2928512
people generally pronounce it "fifty caliber" not "point five caliber" which i agree because it sound less stupid

>>2928512
>using 100ths of an inch
you just outed yourself samefag brownoid
the default common unit of precision beyond 1/16th is thousandth (.001). there nothing in between for anybody but faggots. 32nds and 64ths are only for drills ans such. tenths refer to .0001
get gud

>>2928508 (OP)
>just say 22mm (0.866in) instead of 7/8 (0.875in)
Retard.

>>2928520
seems like you faggot hasn't invented "rounding off a number" yet.

>>2928508 (OP)
>wtf is 7/8 inch, how do you even calculate that
it's because US customary units are base 12

>>2928508 (OP)
imagine being so retarded you only understand metric. Americans use both systems.

>>2928508 (OP)
The entire basis of of the fractional system is that it's really easy to divide by half. So to get 7/8, you half an inch 3 times. How the fuck do you measure 22mm?

>>2928508 (OP)
Americans use thou.

One thou, 0.750 is seven hundred and 50 thou…

0.7505 is seven hundred and fifty thou and 5 tenths

>>2928516
That’s a tenth a thou is .001

>>2928566
saar please ypu see those are mil
750mil
what is a thou saar?

>>2928508 (OP)
feels so good growing up with the hardest language to learn and the hardest measurement system to use; to be a pro at things other fail to understand

>>2928525
literally only 2 retarded country uses imperial, even the country who invented it didnt use it anymore. shut your bullshit nigger

>>2928531
22mm, you look at the measuring tape, 2 cm + 2 small line, even monkey can do it but 7/8 inch? no fucking tape has that shit defined on the measuring tape

>>2928589
>no fucking tape has that shit defined on the measuring tape
They literally do, are you retarded?

>>2928511
25.4mm*(7/8)

>>2928589
>even the country who invented it didnt use it anymore
You're right, they use even more archaic shit like "stone".
>no fucking tape has that shit defined on the measuring tape
Have you never seen an inch tape measure before?

>>2928589
>count the lines
Congratulations you cracked the imperial code too.
>no tape has 1/8 increments
Literally EVERY tape has eighths and 99.9% of them also have sixteenths. Thirty-secondths are admittedly pretty scarce.
>even monkey can do it
And yet (You) apparently cannot. Reflect on this.

>>2928589
Only 2 countries still have human rights and measurements based around actual humans and their experience instead of what beep boop bots expect.

>>2928508 (OP)
>wtf is 7/8 inch, how do you even calculate that,
So your problem has nothing to do with the imperial measurement itself and just the fact you are too dumb for fractions?

The human brain does not work in fives or tens. It works in twos and threes.

You do not attempt to make a computer use decimal instead of binary (base two). You do not complain when the code monkey uses hexadecimal (base sixteen). In a just world, everyone would write numbers in duodecimal (base twelve).

>but not everything is in 12 in mutt units

Never said it was, just that it should be.

>>2928508 (OP)
>how do you even calculate that,
Calculate for what? You want to add 3/8 inches it's pretty simple.

>>2928603
that's funny because:
US-ian cant even pay rent and bill while working minimum wage

myanmar is occupied by their own military power

and the 3rd is a nigger country in africa

>>2928614
>US-ian cant even pay rent and bill while working minimum wage
Only because they put new phones and game consoles and streaming services and tricked out cars and too many snacks and sportsball and drugs and alcohol and actually living life before paying rent and bill to landlords and executives.

>>2928614
> implying that the U.S. is Not currently occupied by it’s own military.

If you use these units you know the conversions off the top of your head for common ones. I didn't look this up:

1/32 .03125
1/16 .0625
1/8 .125
3/16 0.1875
1/4 0.25
5/16 0.3125
1/2 0.5
5/8 0.625
3/4 0.75
7/8 0.875
1 1

>>2928589
>even monkey can do it but 7/8 inch? no fucking tape has that shit defined on the measuring tape

standard measuring tapes in the US would be marked down to 1/16".

>>2928609
>The human brain does not work in fives or tens. It works in twos and threes.

I don't think the brain has any sensible representation of numbers; I think they are represented painfully on top of whatever other primitive we use to think with. Base 12 is just great because it divisible by 1,2,3,4, and 6.

Its the same for angles. 360 degrees is evenly divisible by 1,2,3,4,5,6, 8,9,10, 12, 15, (etc). Its just designed to be useful.

>>2928609
>The human brain does not work in fives or tens.
Wrong or people wouldn't prefer the ease of just adding another 0 to multiply by 10s.

>You do not attempt to make a computer use decimal instead of binary (base two).
Because a computer doesn't have then fingers on which it learned to count, it has a bit that can be on or off as its smallest unit of counting.
>>2928651
>I don't think the brain has any sensible representation of numbers
You would be wrong, it naturally thinks in 10s because it is generally connected to a body with 10 fingers.

>>2928653
>it naturally thinks in 10s because it is generally connected to a body with 10 fingers.

I think the only innate thing is is something like 1 2 - several - then many.

>>2928654
No, I am sure that you can count by tens just as easily as you can count by 1s since its just a matter of adding a 0 since the entire number system was built around tens since that is how many fingers people have.

>>2928657
It really is arbitrary. I can think in hex almost as easily as base 10. You are just used to base 10 - if you spent any time working with another base I bet you would find it easy. The conception of dealing with a number (an object with an internal state), the spatial organization of the digits in a number inferring different things and are the fundamentals that are learned as a child - but I don't think those are human brain fundamental - just the spatial organization stuff is.

>>2928658
>It really is arbitrary.
No, people aren't generally born with an arbitrary number of fingers, the main way of counting is not an arbitrary radix, 10 is the most natural base for humans because we learned to count with our fingers.

> but I don't think those are human brain fundamental
You would be wrong since controlling 10 fingers is fundamental to the human brain.

>>2928657
>of adding a 0

zero is a pretty modern thing, btw.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/history-of-zero/

>>2928659
lol. I think you will have to continue to be wrong.

>>2928660
I know someone who thinks the BC years are pretty modern is fairly retarded and obviously wrong.

>>2928653
>...it naturally thinks in tens...

Got a source for that?

>>2928662
Its literally the things you ...ed away.
The natural emergence of counting came from counting fingers and the natural base 10 that resulted. Its why counting by tens is just as easy as counting by 1s.

>>2928663
I don't think counting is human fundamental at all. But even so - look at roman numerals which hung on to the 14th century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_numerals

This stuff would never have been conceived of or used if there was an innate preference for base 10 in humans. All of this stuff is learned. You are thinking meat designed for survival. That didn't even include counting.

>>2928664
>This stuff would never have been conceived of or used if there was an innate preference for base 10 in humans
Except they explicitly have different symbols for 5 and 10 because its natural to have one hand, then two full.
>That didn't even include counting.
Yes it did, they definitely used roman numerals for counting.

>>2928665
>Yes it did, they definitely used roman numerals for counting.
You misinterpret me; I mean counting wasn't part of primitive / evolutionary survival.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-39870485

you might have me on 5 and 10 being relatively innate though - just not as a base.

>>2928667
But then again, all this stuff is pretty modern.

>>2928667
So your proof that counting is not innate is to prove that the oldest known societies on earth counted?

>>2928668
But again, by "pretty modern", you mean 500 BC and earlier.

>>2928670
I mean in the evolutionary biology sense. Civilization is quite new. Farming has been around only like 10k years. That's nothing. Before that we were hunter gatherers.

>>2928672
>Civilization is quite new.
No it isn't, it is literally older than history, retard.

>>2928670
Also counting and numbers and numbers with bases are clearly three different things.

>>2928674
How old is your history?
The point is that you can see the evolution and creation of numbers and bases of numbers in the past few thousand years. That isn't innately human. That's technology. That's learned.

>>2928677
>How old is your history?
As old as the written word which came from civilizations, so civilization necessarily predates history since history is an output of civilization.

>The point is that you can see the evolution and creation of numbers and bases of numbers in the past few thousand years.
Yes and you can see that it started in units of 5s and 10s because they are based on counting which is based on 10 digits which is why numeral digits and finger digits are based on the same word because numbers are innately tied to the human form making sense of itself and its surroundings.

>>2928653
10 can represent any number except 1 retard. 10x10 always equals 100, it doesn't matter if you are using binary, hexadecimal, base seven, etc.. You are too stupid for this conversation. If we used base seven you'd be in here defending a completely worthless number by saying "yeah but when I need to multiply by seven I can just add a zero".

>muh fingers

You have twelve bones in your fingers. Four fingers with three bones. You can easily count to twelve on one hand and still have the other hand free. Or you can use the other hand to track how many dozens you have, easily allowing you to count to twelve groups of twelve (144 in decimal but 100 in duodecimal).

>>2928683
>If we used base seven
But we don't we started with roman numerals and decimal because it is the natural starting point for things with 10 fingers and toes.

>>2928685
Why not base 5 then? Using two hands you could count up to 30; you could represent 2 digits. Why isn't that the most obvious thing to do if it is all innate?

>>2928508 (OP)
>Filtered by linear scaling and fractions
Wait until you found out about gauges and other inverses

>>2928685
If 5 and 10 are so great then why does music use 2s and 3s?

Try reading "The Master and His Emissary".

>>2928664
are you blind? roman numerals are as base 10 as it gets. and what do you think the word "mile" literally means
certainly has nothing to do with the roman numeral M

>>2928663
Oh, so you're just making things up and throwing them out there with a hearty

>Trust me bro!

Opinion discarded.

How do you do, fellow nerds?
I once was an advocate for the metric system because I found the arguments for it convincing:
>It's so easy to convert between units!
>One unified system for everyone makes it easy to communicate globally and prevents fraud!

But when I started working with my own hands, things changed. I found that it was rare that I'd have to convert between units or multiply by integer powers of 10 or ensure that a pound here is identical to a pound on another continent. Life and labor just don't work that way.
When I'm doing my hands-on work as a lowly carpenter, the inch and its cascade of halves are my world.
It's when ordering things that I leave that world:
>Ordering flooring: the foot
>Ordering drywall: the sheet
>Ordering trim: the foot
>Ordering gravel: the yard
And there just isn't ever a reason to need to convert between any of these. Having a unit bespoke for the task at hand is very useful and makes it easy to estimate sizes and amounts, which is really all you need until you're hands-on doing the work, whereupon you just start using an appropriate unit -- no conversions necessary.

Metric has an obvious home in the sciences, but I don't believe it belongs on a jobsite.

>>2928787
I'm sorry sir, there's a Frenchman and a new Yorker here with a guillotine for you.

>>2928508 (OP)
Hypothetically, do you think you might have an easier time working either fractionation if you ate a healthier diet? Like more omega 3 vitamins from fish?

100 seconds to a minute
100 minutes to an hour
100 hours to a day
100 days to a week
100 weeks to a year

It just makes sense

suppose i wanted 1/8th of a millimeter

>>2928508 (OP)
If you're using decimal you might as well use metric. The charm of imperial is using fractions.

IMO it would make more sense to divide the inch into 12ths

Then you'd have halves 4ths 3rds 6th's and 12ths

16ths are not much more precise than 12ths. You'll probably not mark it right because of the width of your pencil lead anyway. And you can probably eyeball a 24th as well as you can measure to a 16th with them marked the way they are. But even marked the way they are, 12 works well with most of the binary fractions

Troy Oz and pounds are a better unit then Aurevoirdupoir pounds and ounces IMO

We've got three bases fighting it out: decimal, dooeydecimal and binary (dragging along hexadecimal) Pretty gay.

>>2928508 (OP)
>like, wtf is 7/8 inch, how do you even calculate that, just say 22mm like normal human being ffs
7/8ths of something is easier to mentally calculate than 22 of something.

>>2928826
The millimeter is just too small. You can't accurately mark it on paper. It's worse than 16th of an inch

my car gets 40 rods to the hogshead and thats the way i like it

>>2928824
A troy gallon could be 12 troy pounds of water. a troy quart would be 3 troy pounds of water

A troy pint should be a troy pound because a pint's a pound, so there would be three troy pints to a troy quart and I suppose 2 troy cups to a troy pint, but that would be a rather small cup. Maybe call it a scoop or something else or dispense with 'cups' and use the half-pint third pint and fourth pint for measuring flour etc

>>2928833
A troy pound is 13.16 aurevoirdupoir ounces. ( 12 troy oz ). A bottle of beer is 12 adv oz, by making it only slightly larger it could be a troy pint

>>2928508 (OP)

>>2928748
How are they base 10 at all? How do you mean bases work in that system? They are subtracting and adding left and right values, not multiplying vs position. Curious what you mean.

>>2928686
The Babylonians used base 60, I shit you not. It wasn't some random number based on something as arbitrary as how many fingers we have either, it was specifically chosen due to how it makes division for large numbers as easy as possible. Better than the caveman level "durr I count on 10 fingers let's do base 10".

Rather than learning their 7 times tables and their 8 times tables - kids would be learning their 59 times tables and 37 times tables. But it would be certainly doable, just take a lot of time and by the end of it you'd be a human calculator.

>>2928508 (OP)
are fractions not a thing in your country? you're not even complain about SAE vs metric, you're straight up complaining about fractions vs decimals.

SAE is measured both, in fractions AND decimals depending on the application. for example, we might talk about the thickness of sheet metal as forty-thousandths of an inch 0.040" not a in fractions of an inch

>>2928859
i don't see a 12, 60, or 360 in here. if you do, please correct me

>>2928986
also, V+V=X, which is the next numeral and equals 10. X times X is C which is 100, D+D=M, which is 1000
if this is not base 10 then what is. it's a retarded system yes but please tell me what base they were using instead

>>2928988
fuck, now that i'm at it, even the babylonians with their supposedly highly superior base 60 because of muh divisions wrote 60 as 6 times 10 and not 5 times 12

>>2928851
>so here we are in metric land, and people are ordering their beers in metric land
stopped reading there. that retarded mutt w*man has absolutely no clue what she is talking about. literally "let me tell you about your country and language i don't know anything about"

since US customary (not to be confused with imperial, they are different) is all about convenient numbers that can easily be divided, can someone explain the idea behind there being 1760 yards in a mile?

>>2928989
correcting myself here, 60 would have its own symbol, but the 1 to 10 pattern is pretty clear. 59 is written as 5 times 10 plus 9
so base """"60""""" indeed

Base Twelve is the best balance between needs. Base Ten is moronic shit we got stuck with by people who couldn't count without using their fingers.

>>2928996
It's easily divisible by 220, 440, and 880, etc.

>>2928851
>written by a woman who clearly doesn't know what she's talking about and already goes full retard in the third paragraph
only a fool would take this seriously, and when i looked up "joan pontius metric", first result:
"Used by permission of the brilliant Joan Pontius. Check out Joan's anti-metric web site at http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~jup/metric/index.html"
>anti-metric web site
imagine being such an assblasted brit because your retarded medieval units are disappearing it melts your brain
>i was a big metric fan, but
>i liked metric because it got rid of all these silly fractions, but here is why fractions are better
lmfao, honest and biritsh is an oxymoron

>>2929006
what about 3 and 12, isn't this what it's all about?

>>2928988
>if this is not base 10 then what is.
Roman numerals did not use a numerical base as modern number systems do. In a number system with a base X, larger numbers use the symbols associated with smaller numbers to keep track of additional powers of X. For example, in base ten, 23 has a leading 2 which represents 2 units of ten. In hexadecimal, FAG has a leading F which represents 15 units of 16^2. Roman numerals just used ad hoc symbols.

>>2928998
>so base """"60""""" indeed
Correct. When representing larger numbers, an additional symbol (or more for even larger numbers) tracks how many powers if 60 are added. Unlike Roman numerals, this can be extended to write arbitrarily large numbers using the same symbols.

>>2929007
>I don't have an argument
I'm curious. Do you actually disagree with anything there?

>>2928996
>can someone explain the idea behind there being 1760 yards in a mile?
The "mile" unit derives from a unit equal to a thousand walking paces (derived from Latin for a thousand). A single pace is about 5 feet, so a thousand of those don't mix conveniently with 3-foot yards. Standards varied a bit over the millennia, and the 1760-yard mile is the combination of units we have today. That's not a unit conversion which people encounter much, so units were not made to work nicely in that specific conversion.

>>2929008
>>2929014
A surveyors chain is 66 feet long, 22 yards. All those numbers: 1760 yards, 220, 330, 440, etc. are easily divisible by it.

>>2929014
so it's arbitrary bs because of reasons. the rest of the world has moved on to a vastly more consistent system
and a US gallon (different from an imperial gallon obviously) is defined as 231 cubic inches. in god's name, why? 231 isn't even a cube of a rational number

>>2929020
but this is just more arbitrary nonsense and all the base 12 cope goes right out of the window

this is an argument i see all the time and its probably troll bait - but i'll bite just incase its an angsty euro who's never lived in the real world or had a real job.

I am someone who has to use both. Saying either metric is objectively better or imperial is objectively better is retarded. Each system has its own strengths and weaknesses.

Metric is clean, but clean doesn't always mean better. Its very easy to do unit conversions in metric, but you're not always doing unit conversions in most applications. For really fine work like machining, metric is much preferred though mainly because its finer than imperial and it uses decimals which are easy to calculate.

Imperial on the other hand is a much more practical way of measuring things and can be a lot faster and a lot more intuitive for things that dont need to be as precise. The whole strength of imperial is that there are very common and often times biological landmarks (a foot is about a foot, one segment of your finger is about an inch, etc) you can use for estimations, and since everything is fractional you just divide things in halves to get what you need. When making rough estimations of things or doing looser work like framing, carpentry, or cooking this can be pretty nice.

For longer distances it really just comes down to what you're used to. Mile vs Kilometer doesn't really matter that much for 99.9% of the population. Weight is mixed, imperial is more granular and sometimes easier at larger scales (2.2lb -> 1kg), but for smaller measurements grams is generally nicer to work with than ounces.

The only unit imo that has no real place in normal people's lives is celcius. Sure, 0 is freezing and 100 is boiling, its clean but thats about all it has going for it. The scale is not nearly as fine as fahrenheit and requires 2-3 decimal points if you want to get a clean reading. For most people who only use it for weather and cooking its not the most ideal unit.

>>2929012
bro i speak dutch, that she refers to a "pint", nederlands voor een glas bier, as "an english term" makes it obvious she doesn't know what she's talking about. and i already explained why the whole thing is deeply dishonest and ignorant

>>2929022
I never said anything about base 12. You asked why, I told you. I use both, and truly didn't give a shit which I'm dealing with at any given time. Sorry you didn't like that sometimes there's a reason for things that you weren't aware of until a few minutes ago. It's really not a reflection on your character or anything.

>>2929023
(cont)

From a functional point of view no one cares that water freezes at 32f and boils at 212f (granted most people who use imperial do know these values) - its much easier for people to intuitively understand 0 is really fucking cold and 100 is really fucking hot. 80% is gonna be pretty warm, 50 i a bit chilly but not terrible.

With cooking 99% of people will just follow the recipe but the finer detail of F is just a bit easier to work with when mentally scaling things.

C is a scientific unit. Its clean, it has its place - but it is subpar for most normal people's activities.

For every other metric/imperial unit, the best one comes down to what you're doing at the time. People who do real work know both, use both, and know when to use which. If you only now imperial or only know metric then you're a fag who needs to get their shit together.

>>2929021
>so it's arbitrary
No, It's a combination of two different use cases which use units suitable for those use cases. That's the opposite of being arbitrary. If they were arbitrary, you might instead expect a nice conversion factor between them, since there would not be any reason to not design the units that way.

>a vastly more consistent system
That doesn't make it better. Units are made to be used, and customary systems of measurement with their fractional relationships came about because those relationships were found to be useful everywhere through all of history.

>in god's name, why?
It represents a cylindrical container 6" deep and 7" across, as representative of containers used for wine, where that unit was used. And it works with other fluid units nicely. In use, those fluid units are where the conversions are done. Cubic inches to gallons is used in the design phase of a container, not when the container is being used.

>>2929024
>bro i speak dutch
And this is an English-language site. If you can't make your point in English, you might try a different site.

>i already explained why the whole thing is deeply dishonest and ignorant
No, you just seethed vaguely.

>>2928508 (OP)
>even the metric based country has to deal with American dogshit measuring system
It's called Imperial for a reason. Now thank me for my service.

>>2929029
>C is a scientific unit. Its clean, it has its place
Kelvin is better for actual science. Planck is cumbersome to use, but it stands alone as the temperature scale that aliens on the other side of the universe would know.

>>2928614
far more afri-niggers use metric. the majority of imperial users are first world and white, the majority of metric users are third world and brown. cope

>>2928663
counting started with your two hands. the thing in one hand or the other hand. binary. on, off. up, down. light, dark. dead, alive.

advanced mathematics originated from counting knuckles rather than the whole finger, which amounts to 12 on each hand (thumbs weren't counted).

>>2928996
8 furlongs in a mile.

>>2929021
>convert.gallons to cubic inches
Why would you ever ever fucking do that. You're a fucking idiot that has never done anything involving measurements outside of a gradeschool math boom

>>2929099
You have 12 knuckles? Id have that checked out, mutant.

>>2929023
imperial is as fine as metric. inches are broken down into lines, points, twips, or more commonly into successive halvings of an inch. (half, quarter, eighth, etc). You can break it down infinitely, though at some point I guess keeping track of the specific number in writing would get difficult.
>is it 1/2056 or /2058?

>>2929103
each finger has three. "joints" refers to any bend in the body, 'knuckle' is used for the ones on your fingers.

>>2929105
I count 10. And 8 if you exclude the thumb.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knuckle

>>2929108
>didn't read the article
3x4=12, el stupido

>>2928589
Lmao you don't even know how to read a measuring tape

>>2929127
I am a fiber splicer and can confirm counting by 12 on one hand and 144 on two is amazing