Posted October 12, 2015
ET3D
Always a noob
ET3D Sorry, data for given user is currently unavailable. Please, try again later. View profile View wishlist Start conversation Invite to friends Invite to friends Accept invitation Accept invitation Pending invitation... Unblock chat Registered: Oct 2008
From Clipperton Island
etna87
New User
etna87 Sorry, data for given user is currently unavailable. Please, try again later. View profile View wishlist Start conversation Invite to friends Invite to friends Accept invitation Accept invitation Pending invitation... Unblock chat Registered: Sep 2011
From Germany
Posted October 12, 2015
johnnygoging: when cooking I do all of my measurements in metric and have never had a problem. 1/3 cup in metric is 80 ml. (83)
it is true that imperial is easier with smaller numbers and simpler operations. it has its roots in very old measurements systems. but metric is far more reliable and versatile once you have the hang of it.
tammerwhisk: That is exactly why both systems have their uses. For general use and approximations imperial is infinitely easier to relay (for most usage you will be dealing with 1-2 positive digits and maybe the occasional fraction). For scientific, technical, or any that requires precision though metric is definitely the way to go. it is true that imperial is easier with smaller numbers and simpler operations. it has its roots in very old measurements systems. but metric is far more reliable and versatile once you have the hang of it.
In the US we learn both and the common conversions, the only reason a lot of people don't know/use metric is because post-schooling a lot of people never have a real reason to use metric (and thus forget from disuse) unless one is in a scientific or technical field the precision is unnecessary. For general trivial things dealing with a decimal and sometimes negatives is a pain in the ass.
For example the outdoor temperature with the metric system negatives and decimals come up all the time, with Fahrenheit there are "more degrees" within the range humans typically inhabit for many locales negatives are rarely used and decimals are never needed generally.
Celsius "normal outdoor temperature ranges": -17.77~C to 37.77~C
Fahrenheit "normal outdoor temperature range": 0 to 100
(ignoring extremes)
If you need precision, you will want decimals in both systems. If you are talking about everyday use, you don't need decimals in either system (no, I don't care whether that's 20.5°C or 21°C). Your example is silly because the round values in Fahrenheit were simply converted to Celsius, including two decimals (edit: not rounded, but cut off after two decimals). You could as well take -18°C to 38°C and convert that to Fahrenheit.
In any place where frost occurs regularly, 0°C (or its equivalent in Fahrenheit) is an important threshold since it has a big effect on everyday life whether water turns to ice or not. I find it a great and elegant way to have that threshold at 0°C - negative temperatures immediately tell you that it is literally freezing cold. "Just above zero" or "just below zero" can be a huge difference. So it seems a much more useful point of reference than "as cold as it commonly gets in the habitable range". And the use of negative numbers is really basic here, the only thing you need to remember is that -10° is lower than -5°.
I also like to have the boiling point of water at 100°C as the "high" point of reference, which I use a lot for tea, for example. But 100°F as "damn hot" in terms of outdoor temperature seems a reasonable point of reference as well.
Post edited October 12, 2015 by etna87