If you’re looking at statistics for current or power the type system might try to convert it to joules even though you wanted to look at average wattage.
I guess I could see a naive implementation (confusing integration/sampling and discrete summation) going the other way, erroneously ending up with a nonsensical W/s.
Also don’t understand what it has to do with eponyms, which are just substitutes for base units, either your DA works or not, no? Average wattage is kg⋅m²⋅s⁻³ not kg⋅m²⋅s⁻² (joules) or kg⋅m²⋅s⁻⁴
Average wattage is measured in watts. You compute it by integrating and then dividing by the measure of the domain of integration.
Not the easiest framework to work with but pretty well thought out. A good starting point if you are looking to reinvent that wheel.
For example the unit Sievert is an official SI unit despite being just J/kg. This is because confusing equivalent dose and absorbed dose, which also has the unit of J/kg, could be very dangerous.
Note, that this is different from J sometimes being written as Ws. While there are informal conventions, when we use J and when Ws, using the unconventional one would not be technically wrong because 1 J is simply 1 Ws, whereas 1 Sv is not necessarily 1 J/kg when the later is an absorbed dose.
I think one could reasonably disagree with these decisions but that is how the SI people see it.
I'd make a stronger statement here; this is a specific example of when having units is most powerful. When even though two things are expressed in some common form, they nevertheless represent something different.
> Yeah, but equivalent units with different names is sort of only a display/formatting issue, right?
This could be said of two u32s as well.
This is where people go wrong trying to DRY and other refactors. Slightly forced example but
function averagePerClassroom(total) { return total / 30; } // 30 kids per class
function averagePerMonth(total) { return total / 30; } // assume 30
Adding energy to torque is rarely going to be intentional.