You're viewing a single thread.
May I present to you, how to measure like a Brit
It's great fun especially when you're trying to work out how fuel efficient your car has been when your tank and fuel pump is in litres and the fuel efficiency is in miles per gallon.
Oh and you'll have a jolly time following a recipe from more than 20 years ago trying to remember what the hell "Gas Mark 4" is in centigrade for fan or convection ovens.
Oh and my personal favourite for the industry I'm in: when designing a PCB your component sizes will use imperial codes, your wire diameters will be in AWG, your track widths and PCB dimensions will be in millimetres, but your copper thicknesses will be in ounces despite the final weight for the assembly will be in grams.
Bear in mind that the gallon we use is different from the US gallon, too:
- a UK gallon is eight (imperial) pints of 20 fluid ounces, so 4.54 litres
- a US gallon is 231 cubic inches, so 3.79 litres
The reason that I thought American car fuel economy was so terrible as a child is partly because UK mpg is +20% on US mpg for the same car on the same fuel. But also, because American car fuel economy is so terrible.
Don't forget that the UK fluid ounces are different (slightly smaller) than the US fluid ounces as well
20 UK fl oz = 19.21 US fl oz
Holy crap, that's why craft beer tall cans are different from 16oz tall boys here in the states. I'd always wondered why the were 19.2.
Brits also think our gasoline is crappier because we use a different calculation for octane, (R+M)/2 instead of RON.
So 90 RON is actually 85.9 in the US. And in most of the country the minimum is 87 (R+M)/2.
93 Premium is like 98 RON. And race gas 100 is like 105 RON.
To be fair though, your petrol is still insanely cheap compared to the UK and Europe.
US freedom is made from cheap gas.
I thought it was the right to keep a bear's forelegs
God status = blessed 🦅🇺🇲
It's weirder when you look at Canada vs USA. Mileage here is usually written L/100km, but back in the day the cars were exactly the same but the mileage in Canada was better because the the US gallon is only ~83% the size of a proper gallon.
Canada has a similar chart, with some fun modifications. For example, distance could be feet/inches, millimeters/meters/kilometers, or minutes/hours, depending on what you are measuring.
As an Indigenous Canadian ... when someone asks me where something, someone, some town, some location, the sun or a celestial object is located ... I turn my head and point with my lips.
And my distance measurements are usually answered first by asking 'why?' .... and if they give an acceptable response, I'll tell them the distance is either ... 'not far' ... 'far' ... or 'very far'
I turn my head and point with my lips.
TIL that this is a thing in Indonesia.
I still have some doubts. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BeIUsyoAoLsI've also learnt to point with my lips. It's pretty handy.
Thank you for posting this. So sick and tired of people saying that GB switched to Metric.
This! That stupid map that just shows the US and Burma always annoys me. The US customary system includes Metric units. Canada and England still use Imperial/Customary. And "Metric" Is actually like 5 different systems with similar features like ANSI/ISO, KMS/CGS, and the three different pressure measurements.
Natural units >>> Metric I want an alternative to Metric that uses base 12 units instead.
I want an alternative to Metric that uses base 12 units instead.
Right?! I have been saying that for years! It really pisses me off that we evolved with 5 digits on each hand instead of 6. It's clear evidence against the the idea of intelligent design.
Cont on finger sections or knuckles, like some cultures do. Gives you 12 on one hand, using the thumb to count.
Or 16 if you choose your reference points right.
But we still have a number system where 10 is the sum of 5+5.
I want a number system where 10 is the sum of 6+6, and 12 is the sum of 7+7. A number system with two more single-digit numbers: one representing the sum of 6 and 4 as a single digit; and another representing the sum of 6 and 5. A system where 10*10 is 100, and 100 is the product of 6 * 2 * 6 * 2. A number system where 10 is evenly divisible by 2, 3, 4, and 6.
A metric system developed from that number system would be stunningly gorgeous.
You mean base 12.
Of course. But I'm saying it in such a way that doesn't require the use of numbers in a base that is the product of 2 and 5.
In any given number system, the base of that number system is 10.
I’m curious how you could make that work as it’s a basic contradiction. For 6+6 to equal 10 6 couldn’t equal itself which makes the entire premise invalid.
If you want more single digit numbers hexadecimal aka base 16 is even better than 12. But I can’t see how 10 can be evenly divided by all of 2,3,4,6 without being a multiple of the set.
I think they just mean base 12. So "10" isn't ten, it's 1 * 121 + 0 * 120; xyz is x * 122 + y * 121 + z * 120.
Like sixteen in hex is 10 (commonly written 0x10, to differentiate it from decimal 10)
Edit: oof, my client is trying to be clever with the mathematical writing and bungling it, I'll try to fix... Hmm, hope that makes it better not worse
Exactly. I am trying to describe a duodecimal number system without using a decimal number system. "Ten" is a single-digit number. "Eleven" is a single digit number. "10" is pronounced "Twelve".
In duodecimal, 10 is, indeed, the sum of 6+6. Add up 6+6 in your number system. The number you reach equals "10" in the number system I described.
Hexadecimal is a wonderful base, as it is the composite of 2 * 2 * 2 * 2.
But, it does not allow for even division by three or six, and that is a problem. The simplest regular polygon is an equilateral triangle. The angle of an equalateral triangle is 1/6th the angle of a complete circle. Hexadecimal cannot represent 1/6th of a circle without a fractional part. Geometry in hexadecimal would require something like the sexagesimal layer (360 degree circle) we stack on top of decimal to make it even remotely functional.
Duodecimal would not require that additional layer: The angle of a complete circle is "10". The equilateral triangle angle is "2". A right angle is "3". A straight line is "6".
With duodecimal, the unit circle is already metricated. Angles are metric. Time is metric.
Let me put it a different way: Our base is the product of 2 and a prime number. A 12-fingered alien who came across our decimal number system would think it about as useful and practical as we think of base-14, another number system with a base the product of 2 and a prime number.
It's because we're stuck with a bunch of twats who can't let go of the past. They'll stick with Imperial measurements, mostly because the word looks like "Imperialist" and that's the side they want to be on. Jacob Rees-Mogg is a wrought-iron dildo.
According to this chart, goat milk is vegan 🤔
Goats are actually malevolent vegetables.
That makes sense. I mean, bees are fish, so...
The only part I disagree with is stone/pounds for people's weight. Although we use stone, I've never heard someone use pounds... Maybe if you're in Weight Watchers or something, but otherwise it'd be rounded to the nearest half a stone (e.g. 9 and a half stone)
Yeah, it's common talking about babies birth weight but that's about it.
I'm 14st 13lb. Nowhere near 15 stone.
Since volume is equivalent to metres cubed and distance is equivalent to metres (both multiplied by some conversion coefficient), I think fuel efficiency should be measured in metres squared, because why not.
This is a correct unit for it. Why? Think of it like a tube where as you move along it you use up the fuel. Over a set distance you would use more in a lower efficiency vehicle. Since the length of that pipe is the same, then the change would be the area of the ends of the pipe. Thus fuel efficiency is an area, smaller is better.
(Yes, the "bird poop" one is correct, it does talk about fuel consumption too).
I mean, you are correct in that there is an actual physical interpretation for it
But square inches, because come on.
A similar chart could be made for the US, proving that it does use metric: soda and wine bottles, medicine doses, eye-glasses measurements (in fact most medical things).
I think that both systems are used in schools now.
But then I see cooking instructions for a "cup of chicken strips" and a recipe having 1/4 cup of butter, and I wonder why anyone thought that volume was a good idea there.
If it's medical, over 12%abv, or 2L of soda we use metric. Or related to spaceflight after the incident
Butter comes in sticks that are 1/2 cup. So half a stick is 1/4 a cup
True, but that's just replacing a cup with a length, and rules out using an existing tub.
Why not use weight, which is easy to measure and tolerant of different forms/shapes?
Butter in a tub usually isn't pure butter as they add oil to it to make it spreadable when cold.
Recipes that call for butter are normally designed for true/pure butter and may not cook or bake properly if spreadable stuff is used. (there is however Amish rolled butter that's sold in big 'loaves' where measuring can be annoying)
Unless you need to measure it in grams then it's super simple!
Weight requires a scale. I don't know a single American who has a scale in their kitchen.
This sounds like a catch-22 problem.
Maybe scales could be improvised, with a stick, some cups, and awkward-shaped chunks of chicken in one of the cups.
Or, we just use volumetric measurements, despite the slight variations they introduce when you cram pack flour into a cup instead of gently scooping the sifted. It's a kitchen, not a laboratory or a factory.
My first example was "a cup of frozen chicken strips".
I know I can make a guess how much they mean, but I could easily be off by a factor of 2.
It really wouldn't be hard to have the weight listed.
You're cooking dinner, not crystal meth.
"Frozen chicken strips" doesn't mean what you think it means. "Frozen chicken strips" are "whatever neutral solid you want to use to carry the flavor of everything else in this dish to your mouth".
"1 cup" of them is "However much of that solid you feel like eating with this meal", plus any remaining that would be less than a full portion if saved for the next meal.
Forget the scale; if you're dirtying a dish for a cup of chicken, you don't belong in the kitchen! The proper tool for measuring a cup of frozen chicken is your dominant hand, curled into a fist around them.
your track widths and PCB dimensions will be in millimetres
Not milli-inches? Is this a UK thing or have PCB design evolve since I last touched it?
Anyway, milli-inches is one of the funniest unities I've used.
We call them thou.
Or mils
Dost thou indeed?
Beware he who thous the thou.
Yeah, thou is industry standard. Never heard of mili inches
Yeah, even though that unit is a thousandth of an inch, it's called mils rather than milli-inches.
Short distances should be meters, feet, inches, millimetres.
None of that fractions of an inch bollocks.
And milk is often actually in litres and half litres, we just assume it's in pints. Clever little bit of shrinkflation.
fractions of an inch bollocks
my condolences
Short distances should be meters, feet, inches, millimetres.
American machinists go a different way altogether: thousandths of an inch. So no binary fractions, but still imperial-ish. :/
And milk is often actually in litres and half litres, we just assume it’s in pints.
That one makes sense.
How about breast milk? It is neither cow milk, nor vegan milk...
Isn't it vegan if it's sourced by consent?
Presumed consent is not consent. We cannot assume it was consensually sourced.
Like the steak in the restaurant at the end of the universe?
consent is not mentioned in the vegan society definition.
Measure in ml if it's outside, or g if it's in the baby, I think.
Or cup size, if still in the source container.
Can you measure something like, D-C--cup milk since the total volume isn't all milk?
Guesstimate based on the feel of it.. I think a scientific study is warranted and I volunteer to help guesstimate.
All right, but we're doing the study on rats as per usual and extrapolating to humans. Please turn up at the lab Monday 9am sharp.
There's also a difference between imperial miles and nautical miles, though I'm not sure if British long distance ships use nautical miles or not.
Aviation uses nautical miles across the western world.
And there's a difference between UK gallons and US gallons. I see this come up in car circles now and then. People from the UK hear about the fuel mileage of US cars and think they're terrible (even the same make/model)...and it's like, well, first, you're using the wrong gallon...
But what if it is horse milk?
Cubic hands?
How about spherical feet?
Yes. Calculating how much a car journey is going to cost is such a chore. Trip in miles ÷ mpg × 4.5 × £/litre of fuel = cost.
I just assume I'll do 45.45 MPG, then I'm pleasantly surprised when the fuel bill is lower than expected.
You forgot that inside temperature is in Fahrenheit, outside is in Celcius.
No it isn't, I rarely see fahrenheit in the UK
Old people who still remember old money
How old are you? Even my parents, both in their 70s, use Celcius for everything.