I think there are some rather poor arguments in the post. The primary one seems to be that imperial units are easier to eyeball, but I'd say that's only because the author is used to the imperial system. If you're used to meters and not feet I don't see why it would be harder to judge the length of a room in meters than in feet. The author mentions cups as a good measure, because it's inherently easy to judge since you know how big a cup is. In my kitchen the largest cup can hold around 3 times as much as the smallest cup though...<p>When actually doing calculations with imperial units it becomes obvious that it's an absolute mess. If you don't believe me try to calculate which holds more volume without converting to the metric system; a box with the dimensions 2 feet 3 5/8 inches by 3 feet 1 1/4 inches by 2 feet 7/16 inches or a sphere with a diameter of 3 feet 2 17/32 inches.
So to summarize, the defence is "feet seem easier to eyeball than meters" and "some people in the world still use Imperial".<p>It is indeed contrarian. Also stating that metric is derived form real physical properties of the universe "is about as useless and arbitrary in daily life that seriously, who cares" -- so it's useless to know that 1 liter of water is 1 kg?
<i>Thus a foot is well the length of a human foot... A cup, is well a cup. An inch is a thumb length.</i><p>Not really much of a killer argument: my foot is not the size of someone else's foot. Nor is my cup. Nor is my thumb length.
> <i>The metric system was originally developed by scientists during the enlightenment, but became the political tool it is today as part of the French revolution, yes it was brought to you by the good folks who also brought you the guillotine.</i><p>I forget the latin term for why this is a bad argument.<p>> <i>An inch is a thumb length.</i><p>You have tiny thumbs.<p>> <i>For measuring the length of something smallish like a notebook 15 inches just seems easier to relate to than 38 cm.</i><p>Which is why most people would probably say something like "40 cm" instead of 38.<p>> <i>When measuring a room feet just seems an easier unit to eyeball.</i><p>Because you're used to measuring room sizes in square feet. Is it difficult to eyeball yards? Because my rule of thumb (or should it be "rule of inch"?) is that a meter is about a yard. If you can eyeball feet, you can eyeball meters.<p>> <i>Almost all recipe’s call for a pound of meat as it’s a kind of natural portion amount of meat to cook with. </i><p>Of course, because we're living in a country where we use imperial measures. This is about as surprising and about as convincing as the fact that encyclopedias claim that the United States Congress has 435 members.
The article is not anti metric it's pro imperial units for the things that imperial units are good for.<p>Nassim Taleb makes the exact same argument in his latest book Anti Fragile.<p>Imperial units can be used and understood by people who can't even read.<p>Metric units are not necessarily bad and has all kinds of important aspect. But we geeks shouldn't force it on the rest of the world, just to satisfy our geek sensibilities.
It's amusing that the author's first reference to "Imperial" units is a reference to their use in "Joy of Cooking", which uses US Customary -- not Imperial -- units.<p>Of course, the two systems are very similar, sharing many units and sharing the names of other units. But that's actually part of the problem with the Imperial system and its relatives -- works rarely explicitly note which system they are using, so if something uses a system with unit names that look like Imperial units, you have to deduce from place of origin which system is actually in use (and since in many cases the Imperial and related systems have same-named units of the same dimension in the same system that are used by convention for different purposes, you have to deduce from context which unit is actually being used even when you know which system is being used.)<p>And that's why its better to use a system where there is never an ambiguity in which units are actually being used.
> French revolution, yes it was brought to you by the good folks who also brought you the guillotine. Thus it was imposed on people from above to better their lives<p>The people of France imposed it on themselves. Riiiight.<p>> Everyone in England thinks in pounds, stones (yes stones), miles and feet.<p>No, we don't. Don't speak for me.<p>A <i>variable base</i> numbering system is utterly absurd and needs to die.<p>Saying that imperial measurements conform to "real" things is a fallacy, because feet and cups and whatnot are of varying sizes. A metre is an exact length, which we can picture. Feet vary greatly in size.<p>Basically this article is total bunk.
"It’s way more natural to use a cup of liquid as the base of a recipe than deciliters"? Really? What if I have a recipe for 5 people that I want to scale down for my 3-person family. What's 60% of a cup? A half cup plus a roughly half-full quarter cup?<p>This is much easier when the amount is expressed as 240ml.<p>Disclaimer: I'm an engineer. I also brew beer and bake bread, so I'm often scaling recipes.
<i>"An inch is a thumb length"</i>??<p>An inch is a thumb's <i>width</i>, not its length. Likely chosen over length because it is ergonomically easier than measuring along its length. Also: what part do you measure? First phalange? Both? Inside? Outside?
What exactly is a pound? Is it a mass? If not, what is the Imperial equivalent? This confused the hell out of me the first time I took uni physics. I had an older gentleman teach the class who kept talking about slugs.<p>And just to anger metric people: How heavy is Le Gran K today? (note that I prefer metric)<p>Inches to feet is base 12. Feet to yards are base 3. Feet to Miles is base 5280. WHAT?<p>We can go on and on about the imperial system, and many do. The "funny" fact of the matter is this guy is pontificating mainly because of familiarity, and not any scientific rigor. His best argument is that Imperial measurements are based on eyeballing. So can metric, if you are familiar with them.