Hacker News Reader

>Yet UK pushed through with switching to metric and went way further than US did. So this excuse isn't really valid.

And yet they didn't switch over completely. People in the UK measure some things in metric and some things in the old Imperial units, which is the worst of both worlds. Pick up some random thing and its weight is measured in kg, but if you're weighing a person it's "stones". From here to the wall may be about two meters, but from here to London is 100 miles. I'd rather have what we have in the US, thanks all the same.

>The real answer is, that in US politicians were too weak to push this through, because all kind of manufacturers and unions were pressuring them to stop the effort. In UK they just ignored the pressure. In US they budged.

Politicians aren't supposed to be "strong". They're supposed to do what the voters want them to do. If politicians are forcing you to do something you don't want to do, your government is out of control. In the US the people didn't want to convert to metric because it's easier to estimate in whatever system you grew up with. Manufacturers were all for the metric system since it makes managing global supply chains easier.

> In the US the people didn't want to convert to metric

Manufacturers aren't all people. Overall acceptance of the change by the public wasn't the main driver in stopping this effort. Corporate lobbying was however, as usual.

In UK since they trade with the rest of Europe, lobbyists were not so eager to sabotage it. In US they are more isolated so they were more negative.

>Overall acceptance of the change by the public wasn't the main driver in stopping this effort. Corporate lobbying was however, as usual.

That simply isn't true. I remember those days - I was there.

> The real answer is, that in US politicians were too weak to push this through, because all kind of manufacturers and unions were pressuring them to stop the effort.

No, the real answer is that US politicians were too weak to push this through, because the people wouldn't have it.

The people spoke.

The people optimitized for the short term (not having to learn a new system) over long term benefit (a simpler system).

Not people. Lobbying groups. I wouldn't equate the two. Don't tell me in UK people suddenly spoke the opposite. No, most were not comfortable with the change either, but it was a necessary change. The difference is that in UK unions and lobbying groups were less inclined to fight it, because they are more involved in global European market which uses the metric system. It wasn't about people, it was about politicians losing or not losing lobbying support.

Like the other Imperial units, Fahrenheit is also one designed to be pragmatic -- it is scaled so that most temperatures are two digits. 100°F is approximately body temperature, and 0°F is a temperature about as low as one might expect the weather to naturally exhibit.

0°F is quite a pointless border. Brine freezing? Why would you care about that event to make the scale based on it? Water freezing on the other hand is way more relevant for common matters. So lower border of the 0-100 scale was chosen quite poorly from pragmatic standpoint. And natural temperatures can go above 100°F, so the upper border wasn't chosen conveniently as well. It's not as uncomfortable as Kelvin, but it's still way less pragmatical than Celsius.

>relevant for common matters

Put it this way: 0 degrees is really cold for a human and 100 is really hot for a human. Water doesn't care if it's cold.

And in Siberia you sometimes encounter -70°C and in Dubai you measure 50°C (Both of which would be off the 0-100F scale).

Internationally Celsius make more sense.