Take the meter, the group setting up the metric system was searching hard for something that was close in size to a yard so they choose 1/10_000_000 the distance from the pole to the equator. nothing wrong with that, but it is not really better than any other arbitrary unit, and with the better defined ways to calculate it(now defined as 1/299792458 of a light second), just as random.
Or celsius, base it on 100 units between the freezing and boiling points of water, not a terrible thing to use, however with the later discovery of absolute zero, they needed a scale that used that, but did not try to redefine the measurement system to include absolute zero, so now you now have this really awkward 273.15... degree difference between the two scales, the nice scale that starts at zero has no other auspicious points to calibrate it at, and the scale with nice points does not start at zero. they could have made their new scale 100 degrees between zero and the freezing point of water, but that would have re jiggered every other derived unit, so understandable that they did not.
Personally I think an si system set up around base twelve would kick ass, what would make it even better would be to replace our base ten number system with a base twelve one, 10 is kind of a poor number in terms of fractions possible. 2 is fine but nobody wants to use 5, things just get awkward when you use 5. nether one is ever going to happen but it is fun to think about our assumptions when it comes to counting and measurement.
The base units are still somewhat arbitrary, in that they are based on this planet: the meter is related to the gradian and the circumference of the Earth. Celsius is based on the freezing and boiling point of water in our atmosphere. Mass is based on a specific volume water.
If we were to set up a system now we could base it on fundamental physical constants (e.g planck or atomic units). But then we would have the same problem that the US currently has: endless arguments about how the old system is so much more 'natural' and convenient than the new one. The fact is that the rest of the world has gone metric, and the US will too, eventually.
But SI has 2 things that the Imperial and US Customary systems do not have:
1. It is coherent: the base units and the derived units relate to each other simply without arbitrary conversion factors. With Imperial and US units you can't even convert between length, area, and volume without them.
2. It is based on powers of 10. There is only one unit for each quantity, and a single system of common multipliers.
> Personally I think an si system set up around base twelve would kick ass
If we had 12 fingers and used base 12 in everyday life, then a measurement system based on multiples of 12 would be awesome. Base 12 is much better than base 10. But we don't.
Step 2: ???
Step 3: profit
4 fingers 3 bones each, there is twelve right there. now use your other hand the same way as the 10's(12 in base 10) digit. now you can count to 100(144 in base 10) on your fingers. see, much better than base a
Babylonian sheepherders did something similar but 12 on one hand and 5 on the other to end up with 60, which is why you see twelve and 60 show up in time measurement.
It's not a simple conversion because it's not a common conversion. It's like converting between inches and meters. The imperial system is multiple systems smashed together, and it's optimized for the more common conversions.
Not saying it's a perfect system, or that metric isn't better, but it's absolutely useable. I'd much rather stick with imperial than half-ass a conversion to metric and be stuck between the two systems, like what's happened in Canada and the UK.
who actually seriously uses decimeter on a weekly basis and what for?
I've used metric for 50+ years and I'm in the field of sensors and measurement with application from remote sensing to minerals and energy .. and I've yet to use a decimeter unit (outside of a programming exercise).
The convential usage is pico, nano, milli, centi, and full metre (and upwards to kilo, etc).
I mean, who uses feet anymore anyway?
I've just measured up a whole bunch of stuff making a parrot proof covering for a pear tree .. everything is jotted on the back side of a bit of board in mm (millimeters).
3230 mm is 3.2 metres and a bit .. a bit under 10 & a half feet (but, again, who even uses feet or thinks in them anyway? *)
* We do use yards for conveying to USAians what distance we shoot targets at on the farm; (eg from the next door neighbours youtube channel [1] 5023 yards 24" x 24" target ULR shooting)
But doing things at yard scale in mm is not helping the cause. Who wants to be throwing around 4 digit numbers in their head?
Millimeter fit on cabinets is the fit you want, whether you work in metric, British Imperial, or US Common.
When you have a long kitchen counter you're looking at 3 metres or more ( ~10 ft ) with framing and doors that join with barely the width a fingernail between.
The measurements are 10 foot (two digits), 6 inches, (another digit) and then a bit (tenths or hundredths of an inch, or a fraction - depending which you prefer).
That's ~ 4 digits for each measurement on a common household task.
It's pretty simple doing this as 3245mm on paper .. tradies have been doing this here since the 1970s and nothing's fallen down yet.
Dunno about you, I'm primarily a mathematican doing applied work - but I've worked as a TA (trades assistent) in electrical, gas fitting, plumbing, heavy mechanical, rigging (multi sling heavy lifting), welding, etc. (too much exposure to minesites and cattle stations I guess) and there's an entire class of people that are comfortable working with measurements that span the length of a truck and are accurate to the millimetre (or tenth of an inch) - so, four digits? No worries.
Why do you struggle with that?
You are doing precision work while I'm picturing loosy goosy mental estimations.
Now I am curious as to why not. is it just in that spot where no one really needs a measurement? in the US we went the other way, the yard(the long human scale measurement) is almost never used and the foot(the short human scale measurement is much more common.while in metric land the meter(the yard equivalent) is much more common and the decimeter(the foot equivalent) is never used.
What makes Imperial units harder to remember than metric units is not that they are related by factors of 2^n 3^m instead of factors of 10^n. It is that the names of different units of the same kind are not predictable based on their ratios.
If you had a system with the same relationships as Imperial, but say all the weight units were of the form <prefix>pound, where <prefix> indicates the multiplier or divider to go from pounds to that derived unit, and the same prefixes were used also used with length units so lengths were all <prefix>yard, Imperial units would be a lot easier than they are now.
The metric vs Imperial debate would then simply be whether factors of 10^n are better or worse than factors of 2^n 3^m.
I find the idea interesting, but it isn't about imperial vs metric, but about a base-(2^n) fantasy metric system vs metric. There is an appeal but of course it will never happen, neither will the imperial-unit world migrate to that nor will the metric world.