Agreed. Metric is stupid.

The ancient Sumerians used multiples of 60, as we continue to do for time and angles (which are related) today. It makes perfect sense. 60 is divisible by 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, which makes it easy to use in calculations. Even the metric people are not so crazy as to propose replacing these with powers of 10.

Same with pounds, for example. A pound is 16 ounces, which can be divided 4 times without involving any fractions. Try that with metric.

Then there's temperature. Fahrenheit just works more naturally over the human-scale temperature range without involving fractions. Celsius kind of sucks by comparison.

▲ kalaksi 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

> Same with pounds, for example. A pound is 16 ounces, which can be divided 4 times without involving any fractions. Try that with metric.

Not sure if you're actually serious... 1 kg is 1000 g, dividing with 4 gets you 250 g, no fractions. And no need to remember arbitrary names or numbers for conversions.

> Then there's temperature. Fahrenheit just works more naturally over the human-scale temperature range without involving fractions. Celsius kind of sucks by comparison.

Again, I'm not sure I get it. With celsius, 0°C is freezing temperature of water and 100°C is boiling point of water. For fahrenheit it was something like 32 and 212? And in every day use, people don't need fractions, only full degrees. Celsius also aligns well with Kelvins without fractions (unlike fahrenheit).

▲ _0ffh 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

> Celsius also aligns well with Kelvins without fractions (unlike fahrenheit).

But Fahrenheit aligns well with Rankine without fractions (unlike Celsius). [Imagine some symbol here indicating humour.]

▲ defrost 2 days ago | parent [-]

I chuckled ... and yet remain on side with Celsius.

▲ fuzzfactor a day ago | parent [-]

Fahrenheit has finer granularity without fractions.

IOW each Celsius degree is bigger than each Fahrenheit degree.

Even though the F numbers are so much higher and it seems unbearably hot :)

So for a thermostat that only can be set in 1 degree increments (without a decimal point), you have finer control when using F than using C.

Anybody can memorize the conversion more easily by throwing out the math, using table lookup -- made easier by throwing out most of the table too.

Just remember every 5 C equals a non-fractional F.

And every 5 C equals 9 F.

If all you are interested in is comfort level it's like this:

Least significant digit of F drops by 1 every time without fail.

Looks like it increases by 1 each time in the tens column, but it's only 9 so 50 & 59 are the outliers, which most people have memorized already.

If you are a Celsius native and you think in terms of 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 -- you only need to remember 5 different F numbers, 50, 59, 68, 77 & 86 and that will get you far.

Good luck using these as your lottery numbers ;)

	▲	defrost 19 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Ahhh, I mean that's all very well .. but I'm over 60 and I've literally never used or needed to use Fahrenheit - and I had a long career in geophysical and physical data aquisition, ran several kinds of furnaces and annealing ovens 24/7 for a decade, do a lot of cooking, etc. So, I appreciate your rendition of things I have tables for already but any actual need is sadly non existant.

▲ PostOnce a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

re: fahrenheit, it's utility is that 0 and 100 are near the extremes of human comfort. 0 = fuckin cold and 100 = fuckin hot

Whereas in C, 0 is fine and 100 means you died 50 degrees ago.

However, C is much more useful in industry, where boiling and freezing points are more important.

	▲	kalaksi a day ago \| parent [-]
		Ah, I see. Though, it's still useful that the relevant range isn't 0-100 but can go below zero since it's a significant change in weather conditions when we're below freezing point, but I get your point. In the end, it's probably what one is used to. Temperatures here are typically between -20'C and +30'C.

▲ account42 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Not sure if you're actually serious... 1 kg is 1000 g, dividing with 4 gets you 250 g, no fractions.

Dividing by four is not the same as dividing four times.

▲ its_magic 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> I'm not sure I get it

I'm pretty sure that you don't

▲

kalaksi 2 days ago | parent [-]

Ooh, how edgy.

	▲	its_magic a day ago \| parent [-]
		Succinct

▲ bonsai_spool 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> A pound is 16 ounces, which can be divided 4 times without involving any fractions. Try that with metric.

1000 g, 500 g, 250 g, 125 g

I also don't understand the fear around fractions - we deal with halves, quarters and fifths all the time in the natural world.

	▲	its_magic 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		> I also don't understand the fear around fractions - we deal with halves, quarters and fifths all the time in the natural world. Yes, and a certain fast food company found that their 1/3 lb burgers weren't selling well, because their idiot customers can't maff too good and thought 1/4 was bigger than 1/3.

▲ mcmoor 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> even the metric people are not so crazy

No, they were absolutely that crazy [1]. Luckily the proposal fell through.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_time

▲ notorandit 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

And 60 can be also divided by 10, 12, 15 and 30.

And you can go with 120 or, better 210 so you get 7 in.

Pure madness.