62
Why still using the imperial system?
(abananaforscale.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 31 Mar 2024
62 points (81.6% liked)
Memes
45179 readers
2413 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
For anything construction-scale, all supplies sold in the US are based on 4x8' sheet goods and 16-24" on-center framing. I also concede that king George the 74th's foot length is more human-scale when dealing with large measurements: 20 feet vs 6096 mm. I still use metric when possible, however - I find it easier and more accurate.
For EVERYTHING else I've switched to using metric.
Context: I grew up in the US using imperial units and only pivoted to the metric system in 2020. If I grew up thinking in metric and building supplies/standards used it, it'd be superior in every way.
TL;DR I like my imperial/metric combo tape measure.
6096 mm does sound really stupid when you could just say 6.096 m.
All plans use mm exclusively. Airport blueprints, for example, are in mm. At first blush it seems excessive, but it makes sense from a consistency & accuracy POV - 6.096m takes up 2 more characters than 6096 - they don't even need to specify the units "mm", because it is assumed, and anything else introduces room for error.
"Ok Bob, we're going to build a runway, it needs to be 3,962,000 mm long"