• Britain's road signs are slowly turning metric
    259 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;46442765]We've done this already, but since measurements in civilian life are imperial, nobody really rememberes metric.[/QUOTE] I don't know, but did you have classes where you learn to cook and so on? Were those in metric or imperial? It's the small things, really.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;46442786]I don't know, but did you have classes where you learn to cook and so on? Were those in metric or imperial? It's the small things, really.[/QUOTE] Nope.
[QUOTE=GiGaBiTe;46442737]So do thousands of other factors. Space flight is extremely dangerous under any circumstance. Changing the measurement system used isn't going to considerably reduce the risk of an accident happening and history has showed us this. far more spacecraft have been lost to other sources than differences in the measuring system.[/QUOTE] Are you kidding me with this completely garbage argument? How much further are you going to move the goalposts to save face? Congrats, you've successfully transitioned from "The use of the imperial standard isn't a problem" to "WELL UH IT'S NOT A BIG ENOUGH PROBLEM FOR ME TO CARE ABOUT"
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;46442786]I don't know, but did you have classes where you learn to cook and so on? Were those in metric or imperial? It's the small things, really.[/QUOTE] I don't know, I didn't have a cooking class.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;46442754]I think he's referring to an incident where some space project got royally fucked because one team in America used Imperial and one team in Europe used Metric, and neither team with all their smarts had the sense to double check.[/QUOTE] it happens way more often than you think, that was just a high profile case of it causing a catastrophic failure
Actually for cooking, imperial is oftentimes superior. Let's say you have a recipe, and it calls for 1 cup of flour or 2.37 deciliters. If the recipe uses metric, you have to sit there and measure it out precisely, and if you want a larger or smaller recipe you need to perform a bit of math on it to get what you need. Suppose, however, you do a recipe in imperial. Question: How big is a cup? Answer: It doesn't matter! For most baked goods, if you use any size cup the recipe will always work, because it's based on proportions rather than precise measurements. [editline]8th November 2014[/editline] Stephen Fry discussed this briefly on an episode of QI about how clever a system that actually is.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;46442825]Actually for cooking, imperial is oftentimes superior. Let's say you have a recipe, and it calls for 1 cup of flour or 2.37 deciliters. If the recipe uses metric, you have to sit there and measure it out precisely, and if you want a larger or smaller recipe you need to perform a bit of math on it to get what you need. Suppose, however, you do a recipe in imperial. Question: How big is a cup? Answer: It doesn't matter! For most baked goods, if you use any size cup the recipe will always work, because it's based on proportions rather than precise measurements.[/QUOTE] In countries using the Metric system, cooking related stuff is usually measured in tablespoons and cups and such. Not because it's a part of some comprehensive measurement system, but because it's convenient for its purpose. (and accuracy is less critical) Sometimes it'll say "add 100 grams of (...)", but if you do cooking for a bit you'll eventually know approximately what that is in the real world and you can do it without measuring it. What I'm saying is that there's really no difference between the two systems when it comes to that.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;46442825]Actually for cooking, imperial is oftentimes superior. Let's say you have a recipe, and it calls for 1 cup of flour or 2.37 deciliters. If the recipe uses metric, you have to sit there and measure it out precisely, and if you want a larger or smaller recipe you need to perform a bit of math on it to get what you need. Suppose, however, you do a recipe in imperial. Question: How big is a cup? Answer: It doesn't matter! For most baked goods, if you use any size cup the recipe will always work, because it's based on proportions rather than precise measurements. [editline]8th November 2014[/editline] Stephen Fry discussed this briefly on an episode of QI about how clever a system that actually is.[/QUOTE] Any metric cooking manual is based on proportions as well? A tea spoon isn't always the same size, and neither is a cup? If it says "200mL milk and 550mL water" you'll have to use 2.75 as much water compared to milk. I don't see how it's any different, but maybe I'm missing something here.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;46442708]Maybe it's different for other parts of America but I don't think I've met a person who doesn't understand metric. The've always been teaching it in schools. Hell, when I was a kid they drilled it into our heads saying "Yeah Imperial is really stupid, use this."[/QUOTE] It's definitely different in different parts of the US. Like I posted earlier I only got taught metric for a single week in second or third grade and the only other time I ever had anything to do with it during schooling was chemistry in tenth grade. And that only covered a few things like milliliters and that was basically in passing.
[QUOTE=paul simon;46442884]In countries using the Metric system, cooking related stuff is usually measured in tablespoons and cups and such. Not because it's a part of some comprehensive measurement system, but because it's convenient for its purpose. (and accuracy is less critical) Sometimes it'll say "add 100 grams of (...)", but if you do cooking for a bit you'll eventually know approximately what that is in the real world and you can do it without measuring it. What I'm saying is that there's really no difference between the two systems when it comes to that.[/QUOTE] Most cooking instructions I've seen use SI units - sometimes you'll stumble upon "a teaspoon" but it's defined as 5mL anyway, so I don't know why they even bother. [editline]9th November 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Alice3173;46442921]It's definitely different in different parts of the US. Like I posted earlier I only got taught metric for a single week in second or third grade and the only other time I ever had anything to do with it during schooling was chemistry in tenth grade. And that only covered a few things like milliliters and that was basically in passing.[/QUOTE] I went to the US last year (to Princeton high school) and they had homework where they had to convert cubicmeters to liters and such. Pretty embarrassing for the last year of high school (and a pretty fancy high school as well), to be honest. Their big band was great, though.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;46442903]Any metric cooking manual is based on proportions as well? A tea spoon isn't always the same size, and neither is a cup? If it says "200mL milk and 550mL water" you'll have to use 2.75 as much water compared to milk. I don't see how it's any different, but maybe I'm missing something here.[/QUOTE] Yeah sure I'll just get my jars where one is 2.75 times the size of the other.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;46442903]Any metric cooking manual is based on proportions as well? A tea spoon isn't always the same size, and neither is a cup? If it says "200mL milk and 550mL water" you'll have to use 2.75 as much water compared to milk. I don't see how it's any different, but maybe I'm missing something here.[/QUOTE] One is adapting arbitrary measurements to further confuse the matter (If you're doing a rather large recipe you might be tempted to bring a calculator out to do batch conversions, additions, and multiplications,) and one is a list of proportions. One is undeniably simpler and easier to adapt than the other.
[QUOTE=lazyguy;46442954]Yeah sure I'll just get my jars where one is 2.75 times the size of the other.[/QUOTE] Or you could take two of the same jar and then fill it 3/4 up the last time around. And what's the difference from the imperial system here? [editline]9th November 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;46442958]One is adapting arbitrary measurements to further confuse the matter (If you're doing a rather large recipe you might be tempted to bring a calculator out to do batch conversions, additions, and multiplications,) and one is a list of proportions. One is undeniably simpler and easier to adapt than the other.[/QUOTE] Uhmm, could you give me an example? I'm still not getting exactly what you're saying - 200:550 is a proportion nor matter what the units are.
Imagine caring this much about how someone in a country an ocean away measures things
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;46442960] Uhmm, could you give me an example? I'm still not getting exactly what you're saying - 200:550 is a proportion nor matter what the units are.[/QUOTE] 1:2 3/4 is generally easier to do mental math on and more easily understood at a glance in a kitchen than 200:550. [editline]8th November 2014[/editline] If precision matters, you're gonna be going by weight instead of volume anyway.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;46443019]1:2 3/4 is generally easier to do mental math on at a glance in a kitchen than 200:550.[/QUOTE] The numbers I chose were completely arbitrary - they could be anything (200mL to 400mL is just 1:2 for example - it's not any harder, really). And what do you mean with 1:2 3/4? Two 3 quarters of a cup?
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;46443046]The numbers I chose were completely arbitrary - they could be anything (200mL to 400mL is just 1:2 for example - it's not any harder, really). And what do you mean with 1:2 3/4? Two 3 quarters of a cup?[/QUOTE] I mean two and three quarters of anything. Usually in a book, though, you would see mixed numbers written like this [img]https://upload.wikimedia.org/math/b/a/b/bab57bc8a509af6503fcd5353a3d8c47.png[/img]. [editline]8th November 2014[/editline] Choosing to write 200:400 or 283.5:567 or 1000:2000 is correct, but not keeping it in simplest form seems... silly to me. A needless complication that serves nobody.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;46443101]I mean two and three quarters of anything. Usually in a book, though, you would see mixed numbers written like this [img]https://upload.wikimedia.org/math/b/a/b/bab57bc8a509af6503fcd5353a3d8c47.png[/img]. [editline]8th November 2014[/editline] Choosing to write 200:400 or 283.5:567 or 1000:2000 is correct, but not keeping it in simplest form seems... silly to me. A needless complication that serves nobody.[/QUOTE] Uhm, why would you ever have 283.5:567 in your cooking instructions? Just because we're using the metric system doesn't mean we're suddenly doing rocket science when cooking. I just used mL as an example, normally you'd do those volumes in dL or liters, where you would get 2dL:4dL and 1L:2. You're always dividing by ten anyway, so it's almost laughable to even call it conversion. You also made a point about about weight, and there the metric system busts in and makes things easier for you. If you want to be precise, but you don't have any way to measure liters, you can just put a cup on weight and fill it with water. One mL of water is one gram, so you could easily make your own measuring cup. Yeah, you can do that in imperial as well - 8 ounces of water to a cup? But base ten will always be easier. I literally don't see how the imperial system improves on any of this.
[QUOTE=evilweazel;46442998]Imagine caring this much about how someone in a country an ocean away measures things[/QUOTE] It kinda matters when it comes to internationalization and standardization.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;46442825]Actually for cooking, imperial is oftentimes superior. Let's say you have a recipe, and it calls for 1 cup of flour or 2.37 deciliters. If the recipe uses metric, you have to sit there and measure it out precisely, and if you want a larger or smaller recipe you need to perform a bit of math on it to get what you need. Suppose, however, you do a recipe in imperial. Question: How big is a cup? Answer: It doesn't matter! For most baked goods, if you use any size cup the recipe will always work, because it's based on proportions rather than precise measurements. [editline]8th November 2014[/editline] Stephen Fry discussed this briefly on an episode of QI about how clever a system that actually is.[/QUOTE] Most recipes I have read tend to mix between measurements like a cup or a tablespoon. If my cups and my tablespoons aren't scaled to the right proportions, then I'm just getting the recipe wrong. I have at least 10 differently sized cups in my cupboard and some of my tablespoons vary significantly as well, I would much rather just use a measuring jug or scales and get it exactly right than just guess which of my cups is standard cup size.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;46443182]Uhm, why would you ever have 283.5:567 in your cooking instructions? Just because we're using the metric system doesn't mean we're suddenly doing rocket science when cooking. I just used mL as an example, normally you'd do those volumes in dL or liters, where you would get 2dL:4dL and 1L:2. You're always dividing by ten anyway, so it's almost laughable to even call it conversion. You also made a point about about weight, and there the metric system busts in a makes things easier for you. If you want to be precise, but you don't have any way to measure liters, you can just put a cup on weight and fill it with water. One mL of water is one gram, so you could easily make your own measuring cup. Yeah, you can do that in imperial as well - 8 ounces of water to a cup? But base ten will always be easier. I literally don't see how the imperial system improves on any of this.[/QUOTE] I just don't understand what's to be gained by writing it like 200:400 when you can just write it 1:2. I don't get the advantage. Call it whatever you like; 200:400 is still needlessly complicating things for no benefit. We seem to be at an impasse; you seem to think that longer, precise numbers are better where I believe that simple short ones are more convenient when dealing with proportions. Also, when I was mentioning precision I was talking about things like flour, where weight is the only way to be precise. I was citing that as the only place where metric gets you something. You're probably never going to need to be precise with water, however. [editline]8th November 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=squids_eye;46443205]Most recipes I have read tend to mix between measurements like a cup or a tablespoon. If my cups and my tablespoons aren't scaled to the right proportions, then I'm just getting the recipe wrong. I have at least 10 differently sized cups in my cupboard and some of my tablespoons vary significantly as well, I would much rather just use a measuring jug or scales and get it exactly right than just guess which of my cups is standard cup size.[/QUOTE] Once you get experienced, you begin to realize just how little precision matters for most cooking. For example, if something calls for a tablespoon i give it a few heavy pinches or a quick splash or a couple of squirts because sitting there and measuring out "okay I need 1.5 tablespoons..." is tedious work for diminishing returns. [editline]8th November 2014[/editline] Like, most recipes call for salt, so I just take a few pinches of kosher salt and dump it in, it rarely ever needs to be exact. [editline]8th November 2014[/editline] I guess the basis of my argument is that in cooking, going out of your way to deal with the metric system (or any precise measuring system,) is inconvenient where that kind of precision simply doesn't matter.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;46443270]I just don't understand what's to be gained by writing it like 200:400 when you can just write it 1:2. I don't get the advantage. Call it whatever you like; 200:400 is still needlessly complicating things for no benefit. We seem to be at an impasse; you seem to think that longer, precise numbers are better than simple short ones when dealing with proportions. Also, when I was mentioning precision I was talking about things like flour, where weight is the only way to be precise. I was citing that as the only place where metric gets you something. You're probably never going to need to be precise with water, however.[/QUOTE] I never said 200:400 was "better". It was an example, I don't know why you're latching onto it. Normally a cooking recipe would write that in deciliters and not milliliters, and then you'd be back at 2:4 or 1:2. Neither of these options are more precise than any others. What I'm saying is that 200ml and 400ml might be found in a recipe. The proportions are of course 1:2. I think you might have understood what I meant earlier on. I was just thinking about the liter, actually, and there's actually a slight hint of hypocrisy going on. The general SI unit for volume is cubic meters. A liter is a thousandth of a cubic meter, so it's kinda like the angstrom in that respect - pretty handy, but kinda bastardized. Like the kilo is actually a kilogram, while also being the "base" unit. Convenience wins out in some cases, I suppose.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;46443322]I never said 200:400 was "better". It was an example, I don't know why you're latching onto it. Normally a cooking recipe would write that in deciliters and not milliliters, and then you'd be back at 2:4 or 1:2. Neither of these options are more precise than any others. What I'm saying is that 200ml and 400ml might be found in a recipe. The proportions are of course 1:2. I think you might have understood what I meant earlier on.[/QUOTE] I'm picking arbitrary numbers, just like you are. You might find 200 and 400 in a recipe. What I don't get is why wouldn't the recipe writer just use 1 and 2?
[QUOTE=Trumple;46439218]I hope all the signs get changed to the metric system, not sure why we're still stuck with feetsies and yards: [IMG]http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/comics/senior_year/science.png[/IMG][/QUOTE] imperials are as american as fuck, i loves me some british thermal units
Okay, maybe I'm being a bit obtuse. Maybe a recipe is specifically only for an exact amount, or it's just for convenience for people who might not understand cooking very well, which is fine. I guess it's a different way of foolproofing it (Some people will freeze up unless they have an exact set of instructions to follow, and that's okay. Experienced cooks will understand anyway.)
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;46443345]I'm picking arbitrary numbers, just like you are. You might find 200 and 400 in a recipe. What I don't get is why wouldn't the recipe writer just use 1 and 2?[/QUOTE] Because normally a recipe (would depend on the recipe of course) would say "for x servings" or whatever, so they kinda have to use units on those instead of proportions. You can very easily extrapolate the proportions from there, of course. There's no reason why a recipe couldn't be done only with proportions though, that's just not the norm in my experience. It isn't dependent on the system. Maybe I was bad at explaining what I meant earlier.
[QUOTE=Wormy;46443248]I still don't know how to use the imperial system to this day. It would be nice if my school would ever bring it up but I guess we have no use for it here in Sweden.[/QUOTE] what's to learn? outside of the length system, liquid volume, and the weight system there's nothing special or inherently different between them and metrics. weight takes into account gravity, and lb-force are notably different from lb-mass, and length usually doesn't involve changing between miles, feet, and inches in most situations i've encountered
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;46443345]I'm picking arbitrary numbers, just like you are. You might find 200 and 400 in a recipe. What I don't get is why wouldn't the recipe writer just use 1 and 2?[/QUOTE] Because recipes usually scale the measurements to a set number of servings. Telling you the absolute minimum proportions is useless if it doesn't tell you how much food you'll end up with.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;46443345]I'm picking arbitrary numbers, just like you are. You might find 200 and 400 in a recipe. What I don't get is why wouldn't the recipe writer just use 1 and 2?[/QUOTE] But they would use 1 and 2. What are you arguing about? Perhaps you mean 1 part water to 2 parts flour? But that uses neither the imperial nor the metric system..
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;46443101]I mean two and three quarters of anything. Usually in a book, though, you would see mixed numbers written like this [img]https://upload.wikimedia.org/math/b/a/b/bab57bc8a509af6503fcd5353a3d8c47.png[/img].[/QUOTE] If you're just writing it out, it'll be a lot easier to make sense of if you write it as 1:2-3/4. It's still not perfect since someone might misinterpret it as two to three fourths or something like that but in general people should get it easier.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.