> So it’s not like China and Ghana and Russia and France were all using inches and feet and cups and pints, rather they were all using their own little units of measure, which on the whole turned out to be less convenient than the metric system. The UK and US happened to be (mostly) aligned on a more convenient system that could outcompete the metric system.
English units weren’t a “more convenient” system than that used by the rest of Europe. Before the metric system, France used feet and inches - and the French foot was composed of 12 French inches. The difference was that the French inch was a little bit longer than the English one - about 7%, although the ratio between the two varied over time, because before all this modern technology made it easier, maintaining consistent units was very hard. Feet and inches go back to the Roman Empire, but everyone ended up using a slightly different foot/inch. Even the US and UK used to use different inches (pre-1959), although the difference between the two was microscopic (but was considered important in US land surveying, since over hundreds of miles it can add up to several feet.) And today the US and UK still define non-metric volume measurements completely differently - the UK gallon is 20% larger than the US one
> And I think because we industrialized early, switching with the rest of the world was more expensive, so we stuck with it.
The problem with that argument is that US industry is actually more metricated than US everyday life. It is in domestic and consumer settings where the US lags the most in the adoption of the metric system; in industrial settings, it depends on the industry, but some US industries use metric heavily (for example, design and manufacturing of automobiles.)