• ThePyroPython@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    251
    ·
    4 months ago

    May I present to you, how to measure like a Brit

    Flow chart showing the uses for metric and imperial in the UK

    It’s great fun especially when you’re trying to work out how fuel efficient your car has been when your tank and fuel pump is in litres and the fuel efficiency is in miles per gallon.

    Oh and you’ll have a jolly time following a recipe from more than 20 years ago trying to remember what the hell “Gas Mark 4” is in centigrade for fan or convection ovens.

    Oh and my personal favourite for the industry I’m in: when designing a PCB your component sizes will use imperial codes, your wire diameters will be in AWG, your track widths and PCB dimensions will be in millimetres, but your copper thicknesses will be in ounces despite the final weight for the assembly will be in grams.

    • IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      4 months ago

      Canada has a similar chart, with some fun modifications. For example, distance could be feet/inches, millimeters/meters/kilometers, or minutes/hours, depending on what you are measuring.

      • IninewCrow@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        4 months ago

        As an Indigenous Canadian … when someone asks me where something, someone, some town, some location, the sun or a celestial object is located … I turn my head and point with my lips.

        And my distance measurements are usually answered first by asking ‘why?’ … and if they give an acceptable response, I’ll tell them the distance is either … ‘not far’ … ‘far’ … or ‘very far’

    • Psythik@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      4 months ago

      Thank you for posting this. So sick and tired of people saying that GB switched to Metric.

      • Overshoot2648@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        4 months ago

        This! That stupid map that just shows the US and Burma always annoys me. The US customary system includes Metric units. Canada and England still use Imperial/Customary. And “Metric” Is actually like 5 different systems with similar features like ANSI/ISO, KMS/CGS, and the three different pressure measurements.

        Natural units >>> Metric I want an alternative to Metric that uses base 12 units instead.

        • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          I want an alternative to Metric that uses base 12 units instead.

          Right?! I have been saying that for years! It really pisses me off that we evolved with 5 digits on each hand instead of 6. It’s clear evidence against the the idea of intelligent design.

          • milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            Cont on finger sections or knuckles, like some cultures do. Gives you 12 on one hand, using the thumb to count.

            Or 16 if you choose your reference points right.

            • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              But we still have a number system where 10 is the sum of 5+5.

              I want a number system where 10 is the sum of 6+6, and 12 is the sum of 7+7. A number system with two more single-digit numbers: one representing the sum of 6 and 4 as a single digit; and another representing the sum of 6 and 5. A system where 10*10 is 100, and 100 is the product of 6 * 2 * 6 * 2. A number system where 10 is evenly divisible by 2, 3, 4, and 6.

              A metric system developed from that number system would be stunningly gorgeous.

                • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  Of course. But I’m saying it in such a way that doesn’t require the use of numbers in a base that is the product of 2 and 5.

                  In any given number system, the base of that number system is 10.

              • mitchty@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                I’m curious how you could make that work as it’s a basic contradiction. For 6+6 to equal 10 6 couldn’t equal itself which makes the entire premise invalid.

                If you want more single digit numbers hexadecimal aka base 16 is even better than 12. But I can’t see how 10 can be evenly divided by all of 2,3,4,6 without being a multiple of the set.

                • milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  4 months ago

                  I think they just mean base 12. So “10” isn’t ten, it’s 1 * 121 + 0 * 120; xyz is x * 122 + y * 121 + z * 120.

                  Like sixteen in hex is 10 (commonly written 0x10, to differentiate it from decimal 10)

                  Edit: oof, my client is trying to be clever with the mathematical writing and bungling it, I’ll try to fix… Hmm, hope that makes it better not worse

                • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  In duodecimal, 10 is, indeed, the sum of 6+6. Add up 6+6 in your number system. The number you reach equals “10” in the number system I described.

                  Hexadecimal is a wonderful base, as it is the composite of 2 * 2 * 2 * 2.

                  But, it does not allow for even division by three or six, and that is a problem. The simplest regular polygon is an equilateral triangle. The angle of an equalateral triangle is 1/6th the angle of a complete circle. Hexadecimal cannot represent 1/6th of a circle without a fractional part. Geometry in hexadecimal would require something like the sexagesimal layer (360 degree circle) we stack on top of decimal to make it even remotely functional.

                  Duodecimal would not require that additional layer: The angle of a complete circle is “10”. The equilateral triangle angle is “2”. A right angle is “3”. A straight line is “6”.

                  With duodecimal, the unit circle is already metricated. Angles are metric. Time is metric.

                  Let me put it a different way: Our base is the product of 2 and a prime number. A 12-fingered alien who came across our decimal number system would think it about as useful and practical as we think of base-14, another number system with a base the product of 2 and a prime number.

    • HowManyNimons@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      4 months ago

      It’s because we’re stuck with a bunch of twats who can’t let go of the past. They’ll stick with Imperial measurements, mostly because the word looks like “Imperialist” and that’s the side they want to be on. Jacob Rees-Mogg is a wrought-iron dildo.

    • bandwidthcrisis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      4 months ago

      A similar chart could be made for the US, proving that it does use metric: soda and wine bottles, medicine doses, eye-glasses measurements (in fact most medical things).

      I think that both systems are used in schools now.

      But then I see cooking instructions for a “cup of chicken strips” and a recipe having 1/4 cup of butter, and I wonder why anyone thought that volume was a good idea there.

        • bandwidthcrisis@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          4 months ago

          True, but that’s just replacing a cup with a length, and rules out using an existing tub.

          Why not use weight, which is easy to measure and tolerant of different forms/shapes?

          • EtherWhack@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            4 months ago

            Butter in a tub usually isn’t pure butter as they add oil to it to make it spreadable when cold.

            Recipes that call for butter are normally designed for true/pure butter and may not cook or bake properly if spreadable stuff is used. (there is however Amish rolled butter that’s sold in big ‘loaves’ where measuring can be annoying)

            • bandwidthcrisis@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              This sounds like a catch-22 problem.

              Maybe scales could be improvised, with a stick, some cups, and awkward-shaped chunks of chicken in one of the cups.

              • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                4 months ago

                Or, we just use volumetric measurements, despite the slight variations they introduce when you cram pack flour into a cup instead of gently scooping the sifted. It’s a kitchen, not a laboratory or a factory.

                • bandwidthcrisis@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  My first example was “a cup of frozen chicken strips”.

                  I know I can make a guess how much they mean, but I could easily be off by a factor of 2.

                  It really wouldn’t be hard to have the weight listed.

    • rockerface 🇺🇦@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      4 months ago

      Since volume is equivalent to metres cubed and distance is equivalent to metres (both multiplied by some conversion coefficient), I think fuel efficiency should be measured in metres squared, because why not.

    • marcos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      4 months ago

      your track widths and PCB dimensions will be in millimetres

      Not milli-inches? Is this a UK thing or have PCB design evolve since I last touched it?

      Anyway, milli-inches is one of the funniest unities I’ve used.

    • BluesF@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      4 months ago

      The only part I disagree with is stone/pounds for people’s weight. Although we use stone, I’ve never heard someone use pounds… Maybe if you’re in Weight Watchers or something, but otherwise it’d be rounded to the nearest half a stone (e.g. 9 and a half stone)

    • then_three_more@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      4 months ago

      Short distances should be meters, feet, inches, millimetres.

      None of that fractions of an inch bollocks.

      And milk is often actually in litres and half litres, we just assume it’s in pints. Clever little bit of shrinkflation.

      • dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        Short distances should be meters, feet, inches, millimetres.

        American machinists go a different way altogether: thousandths of an inch. So no binary fractions, but still imperial-ish. :/

        And milk is often actually in litres and half litres, we just assume it’s in pints.

        That one makes sense.

    • Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      There’s also a difference between imperial miles and nautical miles, though I’m not sure if British long distance ships use nautical miles or not.

    • Churbleyimyam@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      Yes. Calculating how much a car journey is going to cost is such a chore. Trip in miles ÷ mpg × 4.5 × £/litre of fuel = cost.

    • ikidd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      You forgot that inside temperature is in Fahrenheit, outside is in Celcius.

  • The Quuuuuill@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    81
    ·
    4 months ago

    these MFs convey weight in whatever the fuck “stone” is. don’t let them shame you for not using liters

  • kameecoding@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Invents the word Soccer, calls americans dumb for using it.

    (TBF it’s dumb, especially since you call hand egg football, sry americans)

  • KSP Atlas@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    4 months ago

    The UK sorta tried switching to metric but didn’t do it completely and now has a weird system where the system you use depends on the situation I hate it

  • Lad@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    4 months ago

    Everything the UK has done throughout history was just for the banter. We’re not a serious people.

  • LostXOR@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    4 months ago

    As an American, I use the metric system whenever possible. As of more recently, it’s usually taught in schools, as well as used ubiquitously in science. I wouldn’t be surprised if the US switches to primarily using the metric system in the next few decades.

    • snooggums@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Nah, we have already reached the point of being a mix depending on tradition. We have been bottling soda in 20oz bottles and 2 liter bottles for decades and changing all the speed limit signs would cost too much to gain any traction. Just a confusing mix of whatever!

    • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      4 months ago

      Technically US customary units were re-defined as specific values of their equivalent metric units (for instance, 1 inch === 25.4 mm), so you are using the metric system regardless, but with weird conversion factors.

      The majority of U.S. customary units were redefined in terms of the meter and kilogram with the Mendenhall Order of 1893 and, in practice, for many years before. These definitions were refined by the international yard and pound agreement of 1959.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_customary_units

    • tiredofsametab@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 months ago

      I was taught it in rural Ohio in the '80s, but it was never used outside of science in any meaningful way. Now live in metric land where things make so much more sense.

    • ironhydroxide@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      Maybe a decade of decades. But it’ll eventually get there.

      There’s too much infrastructure based on even units in imperial that would “turn into” a partial digit if forced to stay the same.

      Example. 1/2"wrench would be the same as a 12.7mm wrench. And a 1/2-13 bolt would be a M12.7x1.9532 bolt.

      That stupid conversion makes no sense, so we just use both. Eventually as we replace imperial infrastructure with metric, we’ll use more and more metric, and less imperial. Until eventually it’s all metric. Though a common structural lumber will likely still be called a “2 by 4” even though it’s measurements would theoretically be 35mm X 85mm. And nobody will remember why.

      • LostXOR@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        4 months ago

        Yeah, 2x4s aren’t even 2"x4" anymore, more like 1.5"x3.5", but the name has still stuck.

        • nublug@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          4 months ago

          that has nothing to do with metric vs imperial:

          “Lumber manufacturers typically cut a tree into the various standard types of dimensional lumber very shortly after the tree is felled. At this point, the 2 x 4 is actually 2 inches x 4 inches, a 2 x 10 is actually 2 inches x 10 inches, etc. But then the newly-sawn (but soaking wet) lumber is then kiln-dried until it reaches the desired moisture level. During this process, it shrinks as the moisture in the wood is removed and the wood cells shrink. Once the drying is complete, the boards are then planed to a standard size. Hence, what started out as a 2 x 4 now measures 1 1/2 inches x 3 1/2 inches.”

          https://www.thesprucecrafts.com/why-isnt-a-2x4-a-2x4-3970461

          • LostXOR@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            4 months ago

            Yep, just an example of how names don’t necessarily correspond to the actual dimensions.

        • ironhydroxide@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          Other than that leaves a huge market for SAE spec bolts for use in maintaining the already imperial equipment. As it’s more cost effective to repair up to a point. So some company WILL produce those bolts.

          Which is why we’re here with both types of units, and why it’ll be 100+yrs before imperial actually dies.

    • dankm@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      There will be holdouts. In my part of Canada all the rural roads are laid out in a 1 mile x 2 mile grid. Nobody every says a farm is 3.2km away. It’s 2 miles. Even changing all the road signs is cheaper than moving roads to make more sense in the metric system.

      Otherwise for long-ish distances we’re completely metric.

  • Admiral Patrick@dubvee.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Someone: Ugh, the recipe is in grams, and I need it in ounces.

    Me: Just divide by 28

    Them: How’d you know that?

    Me: …👀

  • AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    For decades, Britain has had campaigners against metric (or the “Napoleonic system” as some of them call it), who were generally on the populist right. There was a grocer who refused to display prices in metric measurements and, when he was fined, refused to pay and was sent to gaol; the tabloids called him the “Metric Martyr”, and lionised him as a hero alongside those who vandalise speed cameras. One of the promises of the Brexit campaign was to abolish the metric system and go back to imperial measures, though after they won, they realised that the imperial measurements have been legally defined in reference to SI units for decades, and establishing a new basis for measurement would be far too expensive and disruptive to do just to placate a bunch of pub bores and opinionated van drivers, so they dropped it.

    So Britain has a mixed system (beer and milk are measured in pints, and road distances/speeds in miles, but most other things are metric), only the fluid ounce, which is 1/20 of a pint, is legally defined as 28.4ml or so. Even worse, road distances given in yards (each being around 0.9 of a metre) are actually in metres, going on the assumption that the average person can’t tell the difference. Of course, they can’t call them metres, as there’d be irate letters to The Times and questions in Parliament.

    • thehatfox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      There were some polls asking why people voted for Brexit. Not only where there respondents wanting imperial measurements, there was even a small but significant group that wanted the return of pre-decimal currency, which was abolished in 1971.

      For those not familiar with the UK’s old currency, it used to be 12 pence in a shilling, and 20 shillings in a pound, and with a variety of coins representing odd combinations of those.

      • dankm@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        When Canada abolished the penny I was advocating for renaming our currency the pound, just so we could divide it up into 20 shillings. Each shilling would of course still be 5¢.

    • HowManyNimons@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      4 months ago

      Oh Jesus. Imagine what Nigel Farage would say if he overheard me giving the measurements of my curtains in centimeters. He’d have me catapulted to Rwanda.

    • SubArcticTundra@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Wait, the yard distances were metres all along!? I could have used the time spent learning my 0.9 times tables for better things!

  • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    4 months ago

    I thought you guys were independent?

    Why do you need a former master to tell you to switch?