Flaws with the Metric System

[KathTheDragon]

The real question, though, is where you stress the full form.

Main stress on "me", with a secondary stress on "ki" for me. (When pronouncing words with four or more syllables, I find it very hard to avoid alternating stressed and unstressed syllables.) I might stress "lo" when using the word in spoken English, but I don't get to do that often.

I'd love to hear a recording of that, because I can't make it sound natural at all. kiˈlometer is my default stress placement (no secondary), but ˈkiloˌmeter also sounds ok (though I don't think I'd ever normally say it)

[Travis B.]

Oh, I think in Australian English, "kilo" is sometimes used for "kilometer".

Definitely not. Kilos are only kilograms. Kilometers can be shortened to kays or, less formally, klicks. The only one I can think of that is ambiguous is /mɪlz/ for mm or ml.

Here, kilo refers to kilograms (when used in the first place), never to kilometers (aka the distance measure used in Canada), and kay is a general multiplier for 1000 (but kay in computing refers to kilobytes, i.e. what has been renamed "kibibytes" (even though that sounds awful to me)).

[Raphael]

The real question, though, is where you stress the full form.

Main stress on "me", with a secondary stress on "ki" for me. (When pronouncing words with four or more syllables, I find it very hard to avoid alternating stressed and unstressed syllables.) I might stress "lo" when using the word in spoken English, but I don't get to do that often.

I'd love to hear a recording of that, because I can't make it sound natural at all. kiˈlometer is my default stress placement (no secondary), but ˈkiloˌmeter also sounds ok (though I don't think I'd ever normally say it)

OK:

kilometer.zip

(45.48 KiB) Downloaded 200 times

[äreo]

Metric in general is whatever, but I will always be a Fahrenheit stan. It's more precise and the 0 and 100 points are more human-relevant.

[Linguoboy]

Metric in general is whatever, but I will always be a Fahrenheit stan. It's more precise

And if you're willing to use decimals?

[äreo]

Metric in general is whatever, but I will always be a Fahrenheit stan. It's more precise

And if you're willing to use decimals?

Then it's still more precise!

[Travis B.]

Metric in general is whatever, but I will always be a Fahrenheit stan. It's more precise and the 0 and 100 points are more human-relevant.

This is why I will always use Fahrenheit for human-relevant temperatures, even when outside of them (e.g. in scientific and engineering contexts) I favor Celsius.

[KathTheDragon]

It's more precise and the 0 and 100 points are more human-relevant.

... So?

Seriously. Americans always say things like this but I don't see why it matters any.

[äreo]

It's more precise and the 0 and 100 points are more human-relevant.

... So?

Seriously. Americans always say things like this but I don't see why it matters any.

Look, both systems work in practice just fine for the people who are accustomed to using them. But if asked to choose between the two, I will choose the one that I already (primarily) use, and have the bonus of knowing that it is more precise and makes more practical everyday use of numbers spanning the 0-100 range.

I wouldn't dream of forcing you to use Fahrenheit. But there are occasional calls for the US to abandon it, and I'm happy to explain why I say no to them.

[Imralu]

but kay in computing refers to kilobytes, i.e. what has been renamed "kibibytes" (even though that sounds awful to me).

When I see it on my computer, in my head I say /kəb/

Metric in general is whatever, but I will always be a Fahrenheit stan. It's more precise and the 0 and 100 points are more human-relevant.

Uh, you know that depends on your climate, right? The coldest it has ever been here is about 35 degrees F. 0 degrees F is a completely irrelevant, arbitrary temperature to me, far colder than anything I have ever experienced living on two continents. Literally nothing happens when you cross that temperature.

[äreo]

Metric in general is whatever, but I will always be a Fahrenheit stan. It's more precise and the 0 and 100 points are more human-relevant.

Uh, you know that depends on your climate, right? The coldest it has ever been here is about 35 degrees F. 0 degrees F is a completely irrelevant, arbitrary temperature to me, far colder than anything I have ever experienced living on two continents. Literally nothing happens when you cross that temperature.

Fair enough. But 65 out of 100 is still better than ~40.

[zompist]

It's more precise and the 0 and 100 points are more human-relevant.

... So? Seriously. Americans always say things like this but I don't see why it matters any.

You're both right!

Imagine a temperature scale where typical outside temperatures varied from about 280 and 315. Wouldn't that be cumbersome, and a weird use of the numerical space? That system exists, it's called the metric system. Most people use a better, older system-- Celsius-- where it's about 10 to 45 instead, but that's still scrunching up the ambient temperatures into a relatively small range. Fahrenheit is more human-oriented.

On the other hand, all these systems were designed long ago and no one's gong to redo them.

[Imralu]

Fair enough. But 65 out of 100 is still better than ~40.

Why though? Why does your experience of temperature have to range from 0 to 100? Humans only range up to about 6 or 7 feet tall most of the time, so why not divide that so that human height can go from 0 to 100? And why does greater inherent precision in Fahrenheit make it superior to Celsius, but the inherent imprecision of inches doesn't make them inferior to centimetres? I don't know anyone who can reliably feel the difference between 22C and 23C, or 9C and 10C? Would that be superior? USians are always going on about how Fahrenheit is better because it's more precise, but if you need precision (and you really don't need more precision than Celsius to talk about how the air feels), you can just use as many decimal places as you need.

[äreo]

Fair enough. But 65 out of 100 is still better than ~40.

Why though? Why does your experience of temperature have to range from 0 to 100? Humans only range up to about 6 or 7 feet tall most of the time, so why not divide that so that human height can go from 0 to 100?

Because human height was not the most immediately important thing we historically needed spatial measurements for. Temperature measurements, on the other hand, are really quite new (though the major ones are old and established enough not to be likely to change, as zompist noted). To be useful to us at all, they have to span a relatively wide range of easily referenced points, as Fahrenheit and Celsius both do. Now 0 to 100 is a very convenient range for us to call on, because we use base 10 etc. etc.

And why does greater inherent precision in Fahrenheit make it superior to Celsius, but the inherent imprecision of inches doesn't make them inferior to centimetres?

I explicitly excluded metric in general from my case. Can't dispute that centimeters have inches beat on precision.

I don't know anyone who can reliably feel the difference between 22C and 23C, or 9C and 10C? Would that be superior? USians are always going on about how Fahrenheit is better because it's more precise, but if you need precision (and you really don't need more precision than Celsius to talk about how the air feels), you can just use as many decimal places as you need.

Ah, but with Fahrenheit I don't have to descend by one whole level of analysis to be just a little more precise!

Anyway, as much as I do consider these points quite defensible, I'm also being a bit facetious. I'm pro-Fahrenheit as far as those who currently use it go, but I'm not in any way opposed to Celsius or the metric system. After all, the freezing and boiling points of water are very reasonable points for 0 and 100. The fact that they lead to less everyday precision doesn't render them ridiculous, nor does it make them untenable (most of the world using Celsius proves that).

[zompist]

I don't know anyone who can reliably feel the difference between 22C and 23C

I can tell. We all have some superpower, and that's apparently mine.

As it happens there is a magic temperature, roughly 21.5 C, where it's cold in my place if it's below that and hot if it's above. A degree F, or half a degree C, makes the difference between long and short sleeves and pants.

[äreo]

I don't know anyone who can reliably feel the difference between 22C and 23C

I can tell. We all have some superpower, and that's apparently mine.

As it happens there is a magic temperature, roughly 21.5 C, where it's cold in my place if it's below that and hot if it's above. A degree F, or half a degree C, makes the difference between long and short sleeves and pants.

A single degree F has made a difference in the quality of my sleep!

[Emily]

anything below 68 F is unbearably cold, anything above 74 F is unbearably hot

[jcb]

In retrospect the gram / kilogram thing is clearly a design flaw. Interestingly the basic unit is the kilogram; and if Wikipedia is correct in an early version of the system the basic unit was the grave (about 1 kg.) Too late to change it now!

I didn't know about the grave ! Interesting !

Ares and hectares are horribly confusing. I think they made sense in a largely agricultural society (such as 1790s France.)

Maybe it has something to do with how measurements of area work well when the exponent is 2, but not with 3. sqrt 100 = 10, but sqrt 1000 = ~31.622. So the are was chosen so e=2 (hectare) would be useful for farming, and e=-2 (centare) would be useful for carpentry.

That reminds me of two more complaints about the are (Note: Did you read "are" wrong ?):
(1) It's abbreviation "a" looks like a common english word.
(2) The capitalized version "A" is already the abbreviation for amps.

(...) mills (...)

I didn't know that "mills" were a thing. That reminds me that in japanese, "senchi" are used as a shortening for centimeters ( https://jisho.org/search/senchi )

- Litres are a bit too big; having a drink-sized unit is useful

I'm not so sure. To this day, despite being American, I still have only a vague sense of how much a tablespoon, (fluid) ounce, or pint is (a cup somewhat more so), and definitely couldn't tell you how many of each make up the next largest measurement, but I've done enough chemistry and science to have a good sense of how much 1 milliliter is, and prefer to measure things with it. Perhaps this would be good enough motivation to start using centiliters? (1 oz = 2.957 cL)

A tangent: The glass I'm drinking out of at this very moment lists its size on its bottom as "20oz / 600ml". Note the incorrect use of small "l" for liter. It's more proof that making units and prefixes case sensitive was a bad idea. Case is not respected often enough in non-scientific/academic contexts to rely upon it to differentiate critical things like units.

Pre-submission Addendum: According to this ( https://www.bipm.org/documents/20126/41 ... hure_8.pdf ), apparently lower case "l" is fine for liters now!??? Maybe this is a recent change ? I remember being explicitly strongly taught in middle school that it's *always* *upper case* "L", so it doesn't get confused with "1".

5/6/7/ are and ton are not international system units (m² and 1x103kg)...

It's not SI, but it's still metric, and widely used.

Before I read your post, I didn't even know about the m/M distinction, and I've used the metric system for all my life.. And how does the sign in the photo you posted cause confusion? What else could "KM" mean in that context?

Sure, it's clear for "KM", but what about "MG"? Does it mean milligram or megagram? Taking a milligram of a drug vs a megagram is quite the difference. Sure, you'll probably be able to tell the difference by context, because a milligram is so light that you don't feel it, and a megagram is so heavy you need at least a dolly to move it, but if you're designing a system of measurement, surely you want to make it clear and avoid relying on context at all.

Outside of engineering, who ever uses "micro"?

Medicine, nutrition, computing.

I think some of the smaller things in daily live, such as individual pieces of small consumer electronics, are closer in scale to grams than to kilograms. Anyway, a lot of food is sold in amounts smaller than a kilogram, so grams are practical measurements for it: The phrase "a 750 gram bread" is shorter than the phrase "a 750 milligram bread".

Think of something that's about a meter or two long. Is it closer in weight to a gram ?, or to a kilogram ?

You mean, as opposed to the words "foot" and "yard", which have no meanings outside of measurements? Anyway, as far as I can tell, few people ever use "ares", so I don't see where the problem is.

But they're pronounced the same, and are the same part of speech as the unit, so you don't get led down a garden path.

I have never heard this. Kilometres are shortened to "kay"s.

I suppose I've heard this in America too: The "5K" race, which means 5 kilometers, which is about 3.1 miles. It applies to other race lengths too: 10K, 20K, but I thought it was a racing thing, not a general length thing; I wouldn't expect somebody to say they're driving "sixty-seven kays" to their grandma's house for a holiday, for example.

"klicks" in US military slang.

I remember hearing that. If metric ever catches on in America, I hope it becomes more popular. "kilometers" is a chunky 4 syllables to say, but "klicks" is a quick 1 syllable.

I don't know anyone who can reliably feel the difference between 22C and 23C

I don't know if I could tell the difference between 22 C and 23 C, but I can definitely tell the difference between 20 C and 22 C. Last year, I would set my apartment to 72 F (22.222 C) (the perfect temperature, imo), then my roommate would change it to 68 F (20 C), and I would get cold and wonder why I'm suddenly shivering, and go look at the thermostat and see that it's been changed, so I'd change it back.

That said, I wouldn't mind if America switched from using fahrenheit to celsius. Of all the possible units that could be switched, temperature would probably be the easiest. The reasons about being unable to switch because of "precision" strike me as just making up "reasons" when the real reason is because they're just used to fahrenheit. (Is there a pithy term for this kind of "reasoning" ?) After all, with this kind of logic, shouldn't Americans be eager to start using centimeters instead feet and inches to measure their height? ~~Centimeters are more precise, after all!~~

Another thought: The naming of paper sizes in ISO 216 is confusing: An A4 paper fits into a B4 envelope. All good. Therefore, a B4 paper fits into a C4 envelope, right? Wrong! C4 is actually larger than A4, but *smaller* than B4. But at least I understand the reason why: the A and B series were invented first, and it wasn't until 100 years later that someone invented the C series, when they realized that they wanted a size inbetween the A and B series. It's still slightly annoying, nevertheless.

Also, wouldn't it make more sense for the larger sizes to have the larger numbers, and the smaller sizes the smaller numbers? It would also make the system extensible. Right now, it's the opposite: A0 is larger than A1, A1 is larger than A2, etc. What if I want a paper that's twice the size of A0? What do I call it? A negative one?

***

Please note that my criticisms of the metric system are not meant to imply that I see America's current system of measurements as superior. They are just an honest criticism of a system, which like any other system, is imperfect and full of vestiges and compromises. Indeed, I wish America did use the metric system on a wider scale, though I doubt it will ever fully switch.

[Darren]

Cms are too precise and metres too vague for normal everyday things (people, cars, furniture, small boats, windows, bookshelves, pianos, cows, etc.).

... What?

I am fully aware that it is possible to use decimals. However, I don't want to, so I won't.

Oh, I think in Australian English, "kilo" is sometimes used for "kilometer".

I have never heard this. Kilometres are shortened to "kay"s.

"klicks" in US military slang.

The real question, though, is where you stress the full form.

Definitely /kəˈlɔmɪtə/. Anything else would sound perverse.

anything above 74 ... is unbearably hot

This goes for centigrade as well.

[Raphael]

even when outside of them (e.g. in scientific and engineering contexts) I favor Celsius.

In scientific and engineering contexts, you should use Kelvin!

0 degrees F is a completely irrelevant, arbitrary temperature to me, far colder than anything I have ever experienced living on two continents. Literally nothing happens when you cross that temperature.

Exactly, that's why the argument that Fahrenheit "is more human relevant" never makes sense to me.

Anyway, this discussion inspired me to come up with the degree Raphael: zero at absolute zero, 500 degrees at the freezing point of water. Roughly the same precision as Fahrenheit, a nice round number for freezing, and an unarguably relevant zero point. Most of the time, in most places, temperatures should be roughly between 500 and 600 degrees; often, in colder places, between 400 and 500 degrees; and sometimes, in hotter places, between 600 and 700 degrees.

And right now, since I just made it up, no one is used to it, so everyone would be on an equal footing as far as confusion is concerned.

anything below 68 F is unbearably cold, anything above 74 F is unbearably hot

(visits conversion website) Yeah, sounds about right to me.