How to get the metric system reinvented

chrisd wrote:

Joat42 wrote:Actually, Irelands financial problems has little to do with the Euro. Irelands problem stems from a number of banking scandals and a property bubble which burst, the problems was then exacerbated by the financial crisis in 2007 (2008?) and led to a recession.

In Italys case, their economy started to go south already in 1980's and it didn't get better because of high taxes and a barely functional bureaucracy which has hampered any economic revitalization.

In other words, the switch to Euro has nothing at all to do with their problems.

As I said in an earlier post, most EU countries wanted to switch to the Euro. Some even lied about their economic state to be able to join the Euro-zone even though they didn't fulfill the economic requirements.

The financial problems were exacerbated by the "tie" in the €urozone and it was not the people of the countries who wanted the €uro but the bankers, the bureaucrats and the politicians.

AS usual, "officialdom" was wrong and bad for the people.

As someone said (paraphrased), "We have the leadership we deserve."

A little nit-pick, we have been referring to the euro-zone and the euro, it's not the euro that's the real problem here - it all actually started with the Maastricht Treaty in 1992-93.

Anyway, I'm afraid we have strayed far from the intended subject of this thread, but I guess that tend to happen on this forum but I think EU-politics really should be ventilated in another forum.

IMO Charis has enough stuff to deal with that changing to the metric system is the least of their concerns.

Changing to a standardized measuring system is more useful and hard to do but changing to a completely different measuring system will be extremely hard to do.

The most important tasks for Charis (and the Inner Circle) are "to win the war" and "to get Safehold into the innovation mindset".

Changing to another measuring system won't really IMO aid in those two tasks.

In addition, the Inner Circle is facing another major problem, "how do we reveal the truth about the Archangels".

That problem will be hard enough in Charis but even harder outside of Charis.

Do you really want the Inner Circle to force people to stop using a system that works and one that people are used to using?

IMO the arguments for the metric system won't mean much to the average Safeholdian so force (including passing laws against the old system) would be necessary but would provoke resistance to the change along with dislike/hatred to those forcing the change.

Revealing the Truth will be necessary but IMO changing to the metric system is not necessary.

Imperial units are not nearly as non-nonsensical as people seem to believe. It was developed for people to use in everyday life. It is also (mostly) in base 12, which seems to fit humans better than base 10 does actually. Don't think that humans are naturally programmed for base ten because we have that many fingers, the mayans with the same number of fingers would count using the joints on the fingers (excluding the thumb) and get at 12. And let's not forget that the naturally evolved human systems of measurement are all base 12(ish).
There is a reason our time is in base 12, and it is the same reason there are 12 inches in a foot. The five fractions a person uses most in everyday life are 1/4, 1/3, 1/2, 2/3, and 3/4. All of these fraction are whole rational numbers in base 12. In base 10 only 1/2 is a whole number, all the others are fractions (with the thirds being irrational.

The Metric systems problem is that in trying to hyper rationalize fundamentally irrational humans they settled on base 10 and tried to bend the world to that, when base 12 is equally rational and more useful to everyday life to boot (which, I suspect, is the reason it was rejected by the so called rationalists of revolutionary France).

For those who are interested I direct you to a great video by numberphile that really does a good pitch for trying to get people thinking in base 12. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6xJfP7-HCc

I'll say that I am a scientist, and I like metric, but that doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement, or that I don't think the wholesale adoption decimal systems was necessarily a good one.

captinjoehenry wrote:Hi I am thinking that it would be nice if we could get the metric system back into use on safehold. So lets discus how that could be made to happen...

First, let us introduce the metric system here in the United States. Bwahahahaha. If that day ever comes, I will rise from the grave to celebrate it.

rdt wrote:

captinjoehenry wrote:Hi I am thinking that it would be nice if we could get the metric system back into use on safehold. So lets discus how that could be made to happen...

First, let us introduce the metric system here in the United States. Bwahahahaha. If that day ever comes, I will rise from the grave to celebrate it.

As one of my old English co-workers used to say: "We are introducing the metric system in UK, inch by inch..."

Aegis99 wrote:Imperial units are not nearly as non-nonsensical as people seem to believe. It was developed for people to use in everyday life. It is also (mostly) in base 12, which seems to fit humans better than base 10 does actually. Don't think that humans are naturally programmed for base ten because we have that many fingers, the mayans with the same number of fingers would count using the joints on the fingers (excluding the thumb) and get at 12. And let's not forget that the naturally evolved human systems of measurement are all base 12(ish).
There is a reason our time is in base 12, and it is the same reason there are 12 inches in a foot. The five fractions a person uses most in everyday life are 1/4, 1/3, 1/2, 2/3, and 3/4. All of these fraction are whole rational numbers in base 12. In base 10 only 1/2 is a whole number, all the others are fractions (with the thirds being irrational.

The Metric systems problem is that in trying to hyper rationalize fundamentally irrational humans they settled on base 10 and tried to bend the world to that, when base 12 is equally rational and more useful to everyday life to boot (which, I suspect, is the reason it was rejected by the so called rationalists of revolutionary France).

Out with the old, in with the new was certainly a fetish for them. That said, Imperial measurements being only mostly in base 12, and having a sketchy relationship with one another from quantity to quantity (do not get me started on cooking measurements!), means that the base 10 versus base 12 controversy is a pretty small part of it.

Cooking measurements? Now THAT'S a knotty subject! Just what is a 'cup' in North America - a weight, a capacity, or something else? I've often run across recipes that specify a 'cup' of this or that ingredient.
Cheers
John

JeffEngel wrote:

Aegis99 wrote:Imperial units are not nearly as non-nonsensical as people seem to believe. It was developed for people to use in everyday life. It is also (mostly) in base 12, which seems to fit humans better than base 10 does actually. Don't think that humans are naturally programmed for base ten because we have that many fingers, the mayans with the same number of fingers would count using the joints on the fingers (excluding the thumb) and get at 12. And let's not forget that the naturally evolved human systems of measurement are all base 12(ish).
There is a reason our time is in base 12, and it is the same reason there are 12 inches in a foot. The five fractions a person uses most in everyday life are 1/4, 1/3, 1/2, 2/3, and 3/4. All of these fraction are whole rational numbers in base 12. In base 10 only 1/2 is a whole number, all the others are fractions (with the thirds being irrational.

The Metric systems problem is that in trying to hyper rationalize fundamentally irrational humans they settled on base 10 and tried to bend the world to that, when base 12 is equally rational and more useful to everyday life to boot (which, I suspect, is the reason it was rejected by the so called rationalists of revolutionary France).

Out with the old, in with the new was certainly a fetish for them. That said, Imperial measurements being only mostly in base 12, and having a sketchy relationship with one another from quantity to quantity (do not get me started on cooking measurements!), means that the base 10 versus base 12 controversy is a pretty small part of it.

John Prigent wrote:Cooking measurements? Now THAT'S a knotty subject! Just what is a 'cup' in North America - a weight, a capacity, or something else? I've often run across recipes that specify a 'cup' of this or that ingredient.
Cheers
John

The cup is volume two cups is a pint, surely I don't have to explain to an Englishman what a pint is,

cheers Mate, Poker

Thanks, Poker! Actually I buy my milk in 2-pint bottles, with the metric equivalent marked on them for those that want it. And contrary to the myths about British beer-drinkers, I don't like beer. However, a British pint is 568 ml, a US liquid pint 476 ml, and a US dry pint 551 ml. Which one did you mean? I might as well pick your brains thoroughly and make a note for when we dig into one or other of our recipe books and find 'cups' specified!
Cheers
John

pokermind wrote:

John Prigent wrote:Cooking measurements? Now THAT'S a knotty subject! Just what is a 'cup' in North America - a weight, a capacity, or something else? I've often run across recipes that specify a 'cup' of this or that ingredient.
Cheers
John

The cup is volume two cups is a pint, surely I don't have to explain to an Englishman what a pint is,

cheers Mate, Poker

pokermind wrote:

John Prigent wrote:Cooking measurements? Now THAT'S a knotty subject! Just what is a 'cup' in North America - a weight, a capacity, or something else? I've often run across recipes that specify a 'cup' of this or that ingredient.
Cheers
John

The cup is volume two cups is a pint, surely I don't have to explain to an Englishman what a pint is,

cheers Mate, Poker

Is that a proper Imperial pint or a titchy American one?

Aegis99, shame on you, a scientist, cutting the evidence to fit your theory! The Imperial system is clearly not 'mostly' in base 12. Linear measure is base 12, well one linear measure is base 12, 12 inches = 1 foot. But 3 feet = 1 yard, 220 yards = 1 furlong, 1760 yards = 1 mile. I'll give you time (ish) But when you get to weight 16 oz=1 lb, 14 lb=1 stone, 8 stone = 1 cwt, 20 cwt = 1 ton. Volume 20 Fluid ounce = 1 pt, 8pt = 1 gallon. Angular measure, 360 is a multiple of both 12 and 10, but simple, useful angles are much more related to base 10 than base 12 (30, 45, 60, 90 degrees).