Hacker News Reader

Comment by montefischer | Hacker News Reader

I argue fervently against the metricizers, for they chose the wrong base for their rationalization of everything. They tried to eliminate "arbitrary" measurements and ratios, based on vernacular day-to-day objects (hands, feet, paces, sacks of grain, etc.) but were blind to the ultimate and ironic arbitrariness of the number 10. They rewrote all of society's "irrational" measurements to conform to a number system based on the number of fingers on two human hands.

Should've picked 12, or even 60 as the numerical base.

View on HN

Unfortunately we do not count in base 12 so whatever benefit comes from more fractions being rational is greatly offset by the disadvantage of having to multiply/divide by 12 in base 10

> measurements and ratios, based on vernacular day-to-day objects

Maybe if there had been just one system everyone used we would've kept the varying conversion factors and names based on day to day objects

But the arbitrariness that warranted the introduction of a single system wasn't as much about unit conversions as it was about different areas (even within) the same country basing units on different vernaculars and day to day objects

Or even worse using the same word but with different values if you moved one town over

And once everyone has to learn a new system might as well make it so unit conversions just involves shifting a decimal separator rather than multiplying/dividing by 12

Yes, but we could have decided as a civilization to count in base 12 just as we decided to measure things in the metric system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duodecimal, so that decimal (dozenal) shifts still work conveniently.

I don't think the two are equivalent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_numeral_systems#By_cul...

For the last 2000 years it seems no major civilization used base 12 or 60, almost everyone has been using base 10 and even those who didn't had opted for 20 instead of 12

Moving from decimal to duodecimal would involve a complete break for no practical benefit and at the cost of making interactions with every non adopter hellish

Moving from whatever you had before to metric was a minor break with the past but it was adopted in the first place because the status quo was already hellish

And in the parts of the world that already had a standardized system which they shared with most of their partners this process was already too much and we're still talking about metrication 2½ centuries later

I doubt we could've switched to base 12

In fact when the same people pushing for metric tried to force a decimal calendar (something which was widely standardized and for which the shift added no benefits) it failed badly

Well, except the obvious example of the time for which nobody seems to seriously want to move from base 60.

I was contemplating this the other day. We coders often bang on about the joy of base 16 as pure 2s but what makes 60 so useful is it has so many factors: 2,3,4,5,6,10,12,15,20,30. It means you rarely need to split a minute when you’re dividing up time for everyday use.

> Yes, but we could have decided as a civilization to count in base 12 just as we decided to measure things in the metric system

But we did not, so it’s a moot point. The metric system succeeded because it fit easily with how people measured things and had some unarguable upsides (like replacing the ~20 different units of length all called “foot”). The metric system itself was not a great step into decimalisation, it was just the recognition that the number systems in used were decimal already. That’s why it was so easily adopted.

You can see it in the units that were not accepted and then all but disappeared: the time and angle units, for which the non-decimal units had practical advantages.

It took over a half-century (<=1801 to >=1858) to get France onto the metric system, Wikipedia estimates: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_metric_system. The systems it replaced were forgotten, but what cannot be doubted is that those "vernacular" systems were hyper-adapted to how ordinary people used measurements in daily life. It was the demands of state taxation and international trade, not the needs of common people, that promoted the creation and adoption of the metric system by legislative fiat.

> It took over a half-century (<=1801 to >=1858) to get France onto the metric system, Wikipedia estimates

Sure, these things never happen instantly. Some units remained in the daily language, like livre, pinte, sou (respectively pound, pint, and shilling). There was no internet at that time, and France went through 3 revolutions and quite a few regime changes. It never was a priority after Napoleon, as the restored monarchs tried to leave as much of the revolution behind them. The people saw the advantages of a consistent decimal system.

> The systems it replaced were forgotten, but what cannot be doubted is that those "vernacular" systems were hyper-adapted to how ordinary people used measurements in daily life.

We can very much doubt that they were optimal, otherwise they wouldn’t have ended with hundreds of small variations of common units. They evolved in isolation at times when consistency was not very relevant at best, or a tool for price gouging at worst. You cannot have that in a modern, integrated nation state such as what France was turning into after 1789.

> It was the demands of state taxation and international trade, not the needs of common people, that promoted the creation and adoption of the metric system by legislative fiat.

That is quite far from reality. It was created as a scientific and technological toy, and the logical conclusion of some Enlightenment ideas that were brewing before the revolution.

There were some propaganda aspects when they got a bunch of funding from the Convention to do some actual measurements, and Napoleon realised how useful it could be for administrative purposes. But the metric system did not just appear one day, ready to be used by bureaucrats. It was not designed by bureaucrats either, at least before the metre convention.

The bureaucrats would have been perfectly happy with a unified system based on the old units just like in the UK.

We really goofed as a society on that one. "But humans have ten fingers!" Well, we actually have 8 3-segment fingers and 2 thumbs, meaning you can count a dozen on one hand, and a gross on two, using thumbs as a cursor.

You can also form a set of 12 symbols that is visible from farther away by doing shapes similar to ASL:

1-4: fingers held up

5-8: touching tip of finger with thumb

9-12: touching top of 2nd phalanx with thumb.

Holding down the pinky in isolation is tricky so this kinda favors starting with pinky out as 1, but you could make assorted variants of this system work.

Fractions would be so nice to work with in "dozenal metric".

No, “we” “as a civilization” could not have decided anything. The “we” that you’re referring to, let’s call it “human civilization”, has never once decided on anything as a single entity, nor could it conceivably do so. To posit that it might is so naive as to be useless. Using the term “we” to refer to humanity at large is almost never a useful abstraction.

I don't know about you but for most people multiplication/division by 10 is easier to do than doing those same operations by 1760 or 2.54 (or 12, or 36, or...). Judging by your parent comment, I trust that those numbers are familiar for you ;)

How much yards is 523 miles?

And, how many metres is 523 kilometres?

-------

You might want to read up about SI base units [1]. That gives precise definitions of the fundamental quantities in terms of other constants, such that it wouldn't change ever.

Like, a metre has been defined as the distance light travels in a given amount of time (this constant amount of time is of course a very small fraction of a second). It's never going to change. If it had been defined as the length of a horse tail, then it would change depending on the horse you use.

(Of course, there's a lot more to it, but I'm omitting the details here).

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI_base_unit

How often does one need to convert miles into yards?

Of course I know about the SI base units, which effectively remove the ability of ordinary people to tinker with, use, and reason about measurements by placing the system in the hands of ultra-experts. Just consider what a diversity of miles used to be enjoyed by the world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mile#Historical.

It is impossible to return to the pre-standardization days, and I do not argue that we should. Many people enjoy savoring the differences that other cultures provide in terms of architecture, cuisine, language, etc. and decry the destruction of cultural differences wrought by things like tourism, globalism, capitalism, whatever. I mourn the loss of local measurements just like I do the loss of vernacular languages, architectural styles, styles of dress, foods, all that.

> Of course I know about the SI base units, which effectively remove the ability of ordinary people to tinker with, use, and reason about measurements by placing the system in the hands of ultra-experts.

It’s the complete opposite, in fact. A simpler way of defining unit helps non-specialist understand them, and not only people who’ve memorised dozens of arbitrary conversion factors.

> How often does one need to convert miles into yards?

Given an average length of/distance between cars being so many yards/feet, how many cars are there in a two mile traffic jam?

The metric system is indeed as arbitrary as the imperial system in terms of its measurements.

But at least the metric system tries to be consistent -- different units can be related and convert in a systematic way.

True. I don't argue for the English imperial system just as I do not argue for the Napoleonic imperial system (metric). I only point to the rich cultural patchwork that has been lost to various administrative imperial projects: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mile#Historical

But there is a benefit in standardising on something across different domains. So that your weight, money and quantitaties are in the same base. Particularly when you are doing more complex things. We have to worry about binary, but we don't need to worry about florins, bakers dozens and ounces.

I have wondered. Would SI or metric system work as well in duodecimal as it does in decimal? Ofc, decimal kilometer(1000) and duodecimal kilometer(base-10 1728) would be different. But would it still mesh together as it does?

A centimeter is a finger width, a decimeter is the width of a palm and a meter is a step.

So do you have 10 fingers on attached to your palm?

Terrans have 5 digits; 4 fingers and 1 thumb per palm (generally). Some mutations have additional digits. Some have accidentally removed one or more digits.

I'm aware. This adds to the point I was trying to make.

Definitions of fundamental quantities based on things that aren't contant is simply incorrect.

since this is hn, perhaps base 16?

I agree, though I am a big fan of metric too. Imperial is simply more ergonomic for the day to day. This also applies to other folk systems such as the Russian or Chinese, to avoid notions of Anglo-centrism or Euro-centrism.

If I want to drink until I’m buzzed, I’ll have 3 pints of beer, not 1.5L or (god forbid) 1500ml.

If I want to run a decent distance I’ll do 6 miles, not the gruelling sounding 10km.

If I want enough meat to make a stew, I’ll have 1 pound, not 500g or 0.5kg.

Try losing a 0 or a decimal point in base 12 as well.

The Netherlands is thoroughly metricized, but we still have the 'pond' as informal usage for 500g. It's nice to have a little bit more meat in your stew. :-)

> we still have the 'pond' as informal usage for 500g

It’s actually one of a few old mesures usuelles that were given a convenient, round equivalent in the metric system in a decree under Napoleon. The pint (or demi) is another one that is understood these days; the others are all but forgotten.

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

It did not really work like that in the Netherlands: in Napoleonic times the 'pond' was officially redefined to be 1kg, but that clearly didn't stick, as described above. An 'ons' of 1/16th of a 'pond' (as described in your linked article) was used in pre-metric times, but the official Dutch metric system[0] of 1820 did not allow them. The 'ons' we use informally now is exactly 100g. That's the thing about traditional measures: they are entirely different when you move a few 100km.

[0] https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nederlands_metriek_stelsel

Reply on news.ycombinator.com