• frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    8 months ago

    It’s easier for handling real things.

    Try doing woodwork in feet and inches for a day. Try it in metric for a day. You’ll see what I mean.

    It was crafted for the human-scale, whereas metric was worked out on paper by French philosophers.

    • Zerush@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Human scale? Not yours or mines, measures of the ffoot, thumbs and random desires of a dead British King in the far past. No problem in metrics, at least if I don’t build a hut in the wood with an axe, then maybe using parts of the body for measures are usefull. Not the first furniture I made, also working in metal. Also in mathematic and physic the metric system is way better (Even NASA now uses the metric system since 2 probes crashed on Marte due to calculation errors in the imperial system)

      • frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        I doubt it had much to do with kings, as they didn’t do handicrafts or have to measure things like grocers/traders do.

        That image is really stupid, too much wrong with it to go thru.

    • MossyHabitat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      Woodworker in US here, and I prefer metric. Also consider the thickness of plywood is actually in metric now - “3/4” is actually 18 mm but they have to market it as 23/32.

      I’ve chosen to join the other 8 billion people on earth.

    • dellish@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Woodworking, sure. You have a piece of wood 2’ 5 5/8“ long that you need to cut into quarters. Can you calculate that in your head? Metric is SOOOO much easier.

      • bloodfart@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        here’s how i did: 2’/4=6", 5 5/8"/4=1 13/32, so it’s 7 13/32"

        smart to pick a prime numerator!

        • dellish@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Alternatively, the same measurement is 752.5mm / 4 = 188.1mm, to a practical number of significant figures. No convertions between feet and inches (or ridiculous fractions of inches), and only one calculation.

          • bloodfart@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            Yes but my measuring tape actually has 32nds on it. The meter side only has whole divisions, not tenth graduations.

            So the sae “ridiculous fraction” is a measurement I can easily make with tools I have on hand to the tools own limit of precision and double check in my head with five seconds of fifth grade level mathematics while the metric one can’t be actually measured without a set of calipers and honestly would merit long division or a calculator to double check and still needs rounding off a vile eighth of millimeter to hit what is in your own words “a practical number of significant figures”.

            Imma throw something out there and I hope the earnest admission that I can’t divide 752.5 by four in my head with the level of confidence required to cut materials by is enough to recognize it not as an attack but as a real grasp at understanding:

            People who make posts like yours either don’t measure things in any meaningful way (cutting, dividing, scribing lines, etc) or don’t know how to work with fractions.

            Like I said: it’s not an attack, I just can’t see how someone would suggest that the metric equivalent to 13/32 is easier to work with unless they didn’t intend to actually measure it or couldn’t do fractions.