Hacker News Reader

Comment by bronson | Hacker News Reader

You think that working in hundreds of centimeters is easier??

I guess the system one first learns is the system that feels easiest.

You miss the base-10 point: you can switch in zero time from 240cm to 2.4m and vice-versa, as you can switch in zero time from $2,40 to ¢240 when you expect ¢60 in return. And you can totally ignore the "2", and focus on the "40" part, if you care about the precision, in zero time, and switch back to a global view.

The real problem then is our counting system. If base-12 is the most convenient, then we could count in base 12 too. That, however, is clearly never going to happen, so we are stuck with the less efficient base 10 system.

The other thing is that if everything is in powers of 10, then complex calculations are done that require multiple units, it's much easier to calculate. You don't need to keep a dictionary of 'conversion factors' to have these complex calculations make sense.

I am implementing imperial system on our currency.

12 cents = a dime. 12 dimes = a dollar, 12 dollars = a thousand dollar. 12 thousand dollars = a million dollar. 12 million dollars = a billion dollar.

can you tell me how much is a billion dollar in a dollar unit now?

Would be nice if one of the many downvoters would explain how working in the hundreds of centimeters is easier...?

Not one of the downvoters, but working in (hundreds of) centimetres (240cm) as opposed to meters (2.4m) is not as crazy as it sounds. Tape measures or carpenter's rulers will have centimetres on them all the way.

Also, people consider it a matter of precision. If I ask for a piece of wood that's 2.4m long, I am probably less concerned with the precise length than if I ask for one that's 2400mm long.

It makes no difference to me. If I described $2.40 as 240 cents, would you suddenly be incapable of dividing it up evenly?

Of course, but it would be a little harder, a little more to keep track of. More precision than necessary.

People prefer to use dollars and not cents, don't they?

They're usually referred to as 2.4m and 3.6m if that makes it easier for you to track. I converted them to cm as I thought that would be simpler for people.

Now THAT makes sense to me. I can picture being on a team using those units to build a house.

(replying to the wish for a name for 2.4m; edited out): Why for the 2.4m, but not the 1.8m or the 3.6m? Surely it makes just as much sense to refer to it as the "two point four" as anything else?

Oops, I'm sorry for the edit. You & I had the same thought: singling out 2.4 was just muddying things.

Calling the unit the "2.4" sounds great. But that doesn't sound very metric to me...

Perhaps not to you, but most folk I know (in the UK) aren't quite so hung up about it. I'll sometimes refer to a half-liter as a pint, or a liter as a "couple of pints", or a meter as a yard.

Though the pint is by far the stupidest unit. Why on earth wasn't it standardised at 500ml? It would have fixed pints, quarts and gallons all in one go!

I know, you can think up immediate objections, but having 568ml to the pint and 4.546 litres to the gallon, is just wrong!

> Why on earth wasn't it standardised at 500ml?

Because you'd have a revolution on your hand when people realized they were being served less beer.

Nah, I just couldn't picture anyone doing woodwork in hundreds or thousands of units (now, where did I get that idea...?), or dividing base 10 units. Since it sounds like wood is sold and worked in base 12, I'd use metric no problem. But that makes the difference between imperial and metric pretty arbitrary, doesn't it?

I've actually worked in the construction industry in New Zealand, which was thoroughly metric when I was building houses ~10 years ago.

And we did everything in mm, standardised timber was "100x50" - mm was assumed, which was close to 2x4 Inches. (Actually, I think the finished standardised timber is smaller than 100mmx50mm, but for some reason was still called 100x50) sheets of Gib plaster (Drywall?) were 1200x3600,(possibly 1600x.. I don't remember) sometimes bigger. rooms had 2400mm or 3600mm stud heights. 90mm nails were used to assemble the house frames, and 50mm nails were used when the 90mm nails would have been excessive.

We only really used Meters when we were being vague - "Go about a meter further out!" and usually converted to mm when we were actually cutting or fastening something. I never poured any concrete myself, but I'm pretty sure the foundation boxing would have been measured out to the mm, even over 10s of meters of distance.

If I ever gave someone a measurement in cm I'd get told "Only Dressmakers user centimeters!" I don't think I ever used feet, and I only ever used inches when discussing lumber, and would always be told to use metric.

Dressmakers have it really bad in the UK, as when you buy fabric, the widths are in inches and length is in meters.

A piece of 2" x 4" timber is still referred to as "2 by 4" in the UK, except it now measures 50mm x 100mm (actual conversion is 50.8mm x 101.6mm, the difference being moot when building scale is taken into account)

> More precision than necessary.

What? The precision of $2.40 and 240 cent is exactly the same. Two significant digits.

It's kinda funny, every time this debate comes around, I see that the people advocating imperial are always confused by the concept of precision, which is handled very naturally in the metric system, but people advocating metric are confused about the way the imperial system uses subdivision.

For a metric person, a measurement such as 13/64" looks weird, and for an imperial person, a measurement such as 5.2mm looks weird, when in reality they are very close, and of the same precision.

I think this is his argument. It would actually be harder for him to handle more digits, even thought they mean the same thing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com