Miscellaneous desk
< March 12	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 14 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 13[edit]

US metric units[edit]

Is there any newspaper in the US that also uses metric units on its weather page, so that the forecasted temperatures would also be given in Celsius in addition to Fahrenheit, or the weather page would have a metric conversion table? Is there any US media that consistently uses metric units as primary, or only units? --40bus (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a while since I read Scientific American, but I would certainly expect metric units to be primary there and other magazines of that kind. --142.112.220.50 (talk) 21:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The National Weather Service in the US uses Fahrenheit temperatures, as does The Weather Channel and similar weather reporting services. Newspapers normally follow the same practice. I cannot say that there is no newspaper in the US that uses Celsius in weather reports, but the vast majority don't. When Americans talk about the weather, they overwhelmingly express temperatures in Fahrenheit, and the same is true of home heating and oven cooking. Why? Fahrenheit temperatures are 1.8 times more granular than Celsius temperatures, and the 100 degrees from 0 to 100 neatly covers the range from a very cold but normal winter day to a very hot but normal summer day. Plus, many Americans take a certain delight in doing things differently than the rest of the world does. The metric system is widely used in scientific and techological contexts, though. Cullen328 (talk) 08:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But the question was about media, not general usage. --142.112.220.50 (talk) 21:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I discussed the media. I then discussed general usage because the popular media reflects and incorporates general usage and so they are intimately interrelated. Cullen328 (talk) 08:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You told us why Americans use Fahrenheit. I submit that really, most Americans have never made a choice to use Fahrenheit. They just do. HiLo48 (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By now, that's likely the case with Celsius around the world, too. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo48, you are correct that younger Americans are largely unexposed to debates about metrification. But older Americans participated in fairly detailed national discussions about metrification in the late 20th century, and consensus for the change simply did not emerge, except in scientific and technical fields. You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink. Cullen328 (talk) 08:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Were those discussions better informed and rational than those about COVID and vaccines? HiLo48 (talk) 09:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They could have had a similar core premise: "What's in it for me?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseball Bugs (talk • contribs) 11:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo48, this Time magazine article gives a good overview of American practices and attitudes about metrification. Cullen328 (talk) 20:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. It implies that Americans somehow chose to not go metric. But were they ever given a vote? HiLo48 (talk) 22:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A while back, I read that Canada imposed the metric system by fiat and forced it upon their citizenry. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, I'm just saying that's how they managed to do it, from what I understand. Viriditas (talk) 23:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Governments, being elected to govern, frequently impose things by fiat and force them upon their citizenry. There are taxes, for example. Australians certainly didn't get a vote on metrication, but it was a progressive time, and most of us just saw it as a logical, even exciting, thing to to. Perhaps more like this argument is the abolition of the death penalty. It is almost always removed by legislation, rather than giving the citizens a vote. A little while later, it's always found that most citizens are happy with the change. HiLo48 (talk) 01:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fascinating topic, to be honest. I wish I could remember the book I read it in. It basically said something like "Canadians didn't want the metric system, but they got it anyway, and now they love it." Viriditas (talk) 11:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. HiLo48 (talk) 00:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As an elderly Brit, I can cope with weather reports in Celsius, in part because the mental arithmetic to convert to Fahrenheit is trivial*: only Fahrenheit gives me an instant understanding of exactly what the given temperature feels like.

(* for an approximation at usual ambient temperatures, double and add 30; for an exact figure at all temperatures, double, subtract 10%, and add 32.)

{The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.186.221 (talk) 00:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Around 50 years ago, when Australia went metric, one of the first useful jobs I did as a beginner computer programmer at the Bureau of Meteorology (Australia's national weather service) was to write the program to convert Australia's weather records from Fahrenheit to Celsius. For the aficionados, it was in FORTRAN 4. HiLo48 (talk) 00:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just mention that the USA, being the only major country to reject the metric system, still feels it's their right to change the spelling of the foundation unit, the metre, to "meter". (mumble ... hypocrites ... grumble ... Trumpian arrogance ... mumble) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:23, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [reply]
JackofOz, no need to get all emotional. First, the US does not reject the metric system. It is legal for all purposes and its usage is encouraged although not mandatory except in a few cases. In many industries, the metric system is now standard and universal. It is universal in wine and liquor bottling. Soft drinks are sold in two liter bottles. Auto parts are metric. Pharmaceuticals are metric. High tech manufacturing is metric.

All packaged foods are required by law to have both common and metric quantities. And so on. This has absolutely nothing to do with Trump, who I personally oppose quite strongly. 81 million adult Americans voted against Trump last election, over three times the population of Australia including children. As for spelling, Americans should not try to impose our ENGVAR spellings on others, and others should not try to impose their preferred spellings on Americans. I know exactly what you mean when you write "colour" and you know exactly what I mean when I write "meter". Cullen328 (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. "Meter" in the US has two distinct meanings related to measurement, one for the unit, and one for a device for measuring something, typically the rate of flow of something. The words with those two meanings have different spelling in most of the English speaking world. HiLo48 (talk) 22:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo48, you know that many words have two or more meanings that can easily be differentiated in context. The word is also used in music and poetry. If I said "I need to put some money in the parking meter", you would not think that I was talking about a unit of measurement, would you? I wonder why so many Australians enjoy such great success in the United States when things are so screwed up here, from your point of view? Cullen328 (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the spelling of metre as meter as silly especially since they seem excessively disinterested in using the unit. But I find the general complaint just weird since Cullen328 is right that it's surely very rare that it can genuinely be confusing with only the minimal of contextual clues. What's even funnier is that AFAIK, like in Kiwi English, the phrases like "I'm eating some chips" might genuinely be confusing in Australian English without more contextual clues. And ironically while the disambiguator "I'm eating some hot chips" or "I'm eating a packet of chips" might be understandable to someone slightly familiar with the two possible meaning of chips, "I'm eating some potato chips" is probably not unless the person is also familiar with what "potato chips" means since obviously both are technically potato chips. (Well I mean let's not get into complexities like kumara/sweet potato chips.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just two points. First, the actual original spelling of the unit's name is fr:mètre. You're welcome to anglicize it to "metre" if you want, but please don't claim it's the original form. Second, "mètre" is the same form used in French words like fr:thermomètre", "fr:hygromètre", "fr:sphygmomanomètre", "fr:baromètre", "fr:anémomètre", so I at least think it's sensible for the corresponding words in English to work the same way. --142.112.220.50 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is not strictly on topic, but I'm hardly the first here. I get the impression that there's a common opinion that the metric system, or maybe even specifically SI, is the One True System of Weights and Measures, and is uniformly superior to other systems like US Customary or Imperial.

This is of course complete and utter nonsense. All systems of measurement, with the possible exception of Planck units or similar, are essentially arbitrary. Temperatures in Celsius or Fahrenheit are equally arbitrary — it's true that Celsius divides the difference between the freezing and boiling points of water into a power-of-10 number of degrees, but (a) there's nothing special about 10, and (b) there's nothing that special about water.

The thing about 10 seems to be a particular stumbling block. Metric measurements love to emphasize powers of 10, but as I think I already mentioned, there's nothing special about 10. It's true that for base-10 mental arithmetic, there are some minor advantages for trivial calculations if units have power-of-10 relationships. But for non-trivial calculations, there's no real difference, because you usually have to throw in fudge factors anyway.

There is one major thing that metric does better, and that's not overloading the same term with lots of different meanings. Old joke: Which is heavier, a pound of feathers or a pound of gold? A pound of feathers, of course, because that's an avoirdupois pound, whereas a pound of gold is a pound Troy. That is the one legitimate criticism of Imperial and US Customary, and it can be a real thorn in the side. But it's more a language issue than one of measurement system per se. --Trovatore (talk) 06:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [reply]

But I think for a lot of people, trivial calculations are what they encounter most of the time. If see a packet of sweets that is 590g and another is 1.1kg, it's simple for me to compare the two. If I see a packet of sweets that is 14 ounces and another that is 2 pound 3 ounces, it's far more difficult and for no reason. Similarly, if I measure something as 1.35m, if I want the distance in mm it's trivial. If I measure a distance in 3 feet 2 inches and want it in feet or inches, it's decidedly non trivial. I appreciate things might be different for mathematician (or a programmer perhaps) but for someone who just wants to be able to look at packets, weigh stuff on scales, use a measuring tape etc; the benefits metric over any system which is not base-10 when I am using base-10 are clear. If we were the ancient Sumerians or something weren't using base-10 things would be different but we're not and we do. I mean we already have to do enough mental maths precisely because manufacturers do stuff like I suggested earlier and the small size might be 590g and the large size 1.1kg that there's absolutely zero reason to add to that by using a system not based on base-10. Note that the arguments that something like base 12 or base 16 are better bases have decent arguments behind them but it seems unlikely we're going to change our numbering system anytime soon. I mean for starters, if Americans can't even handle the change to metric, imagine how they would not cope with changing what base they use for basic numbers? I mean I have doubts English speakers are every going to abandon QWERTY anytime soon unless they just end up abandoning keyboards and that seems a far easier change to make and also has some arguments for it. And yes I'm typing this on a QWERTY keyboard without looking at the keyboard.

NB I'd also disagree with the nothing special about water. Water has a big influence on our lives, whether cooking, rain, snow, etc. So yes, my fridge is set to something like 4 degrees C because it's not intended to be my freezer. My freezer is something like -20 degrees and I know if it ever gets close to 0, then it starts to be a concern.) Likewise when I'm cooking, I know that if I set a temperature of 110 degrees C, that's above the boiling point but 90 degrees C is below. It's not perfect since people live at different altitudes but it tends to be close enough and for me, makes it far easier to visualise stuff. This applies even when you're not using water, e.g when deep frying. Likewise while weather is fairly complicated, still at a basic level it's not hard to figure out that if temperatures are regularly dropping to -10 degrees C you might get ice outside and maybe even snow. OTOH, if lows tend to be 5 degrees C, you might get limited ice and frost etc, but you're probably not getting a frozen pond. Again, if we were methane-based then yeah we'd be asking WTF does water matter? Likewise if we are able to live somewhere that the temperatures are different enough that 0 as freezing and 100 as boiling is too imprecise to be useful. But since neither of those are true, it is what it is.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should be clear that I'm not afraid of a little mental maths. I'm the sort of person who always tries to get the best deal, to the extent I make sure I check the number of sheets in toilet paper since yes manufacturers at least in NZ might sell a 40 pack of toilet rolls with 150 sheets per roll but their 18 pack has 180 sheets per roll. So working out the best price does require calculation and while I do often just use my phone, sometimes I don't. But while I do remember that there are 12 inches in a foot and I might have remembered there are 16 ounces in a pound, I have absolutely zero desire to do dumb pointless calculations when just going about my everyday life for which there's absolutely no reason except some weird preference for history. Sometimes calculations are needed e.g. if I'm cutting a recipe in half or worse a 1/3 then yes working out what I should use in 50g does require some calculation. Or likewise since 1kg of milk power (+ water) might make 10L or 8L of milk depending on the type of power then yes I do need to calculate to work out what I needed for e.g. 200 mL or 150mL or whatever so they're not unavoidable. But dumb ones at least can be.

And I didn't mention this before because more might disagree but frankly, I find it nice that envisioning the difference between day "3 nm" (as arbitary as the "3" part of that is) process node or 400nm light wave length or 0.5–5.0 micrometres for for a reasonable size estimate for general bacteria cell length or 0.5 mm mechanical pencil lead, or a 10 cm ruler, or a 3.5m traffic lane, or 100m run, or a 1.3km walk to local shopping complex or whatever, or a 8km drive to some shop or friend's house or whatever or a 130 km drive to another city or something, or the 8900km distance between Malaysia and New Zealand or the 40000km of so circumference of the earth at the equator, or the 384,400km or so distance to the moon is something you can fairly trivial consider from orders of magnitude. Yes there's a fudge factor but it's still close enough. By comparison, I have no idea and no desire to learn whatever the fuck the difference is between whatever is smaller than an inch, an inch, a foot, a yard, a mile and well I think you seem to stop at miles and try to work imagine orders of magnitude when comparing different things like that. Some might feel it's not useful or humans are still too bad at properly understanding differences in orders of magnitude. I stopped at the moon in part because I acknowledge once you get much past that, I'm probably not properly imagining the difference even if it seems trivial.

I mean even when it doesn't mean much, it's also sort of interesting to think if I eat 500g of chocolate then holy crap I just ate 1/200 of my body weight in chocolate or whatever. (I don't actually weigh 100kg.)

Of course there is also an aspect of familiarity hence why it's so hard for people to change like in the US. Beyond the simplicity of something based on water when we're so heavily affected by water, I do like celsius just because it's what I'm used to. So I know what 180 degrees C is for my oven, or deep frying. And I likewise know what to expect if it's 20 degrees C or 10 degrees C or whatever. Because of American recipes etc, I do have some vague idea what 375 degrees Fahrenheit is but I really have no idea what the fuck 60 degrees Fahrenheit means for weather and no desire to know either. Likewise when I learn someone is 2m it's much more meaningful then when I learn they are 6 foot even if I hear the latter a lot due to US and UK media etc.

Nautical miles is the only non metric unit that still makes sense in some contexts for humans living on earth IMO. (To be clear, I'm excluding stuff like litre, Angstrom, metric tonne etc where it's more a matter of naming than anything. While I do think for base units we don't really need things like Angstom, cm etc, and should probably just stick with units for every 3, it doesn't matter a great deal IMO unlike having to work out WTF a yard is etc.) Oh and I didn't mention earlier, but likewise while Kelvin obviously has significant advantages in certain scientific fields, it's something that is arguably even worse than Fahrenheit which a terrible enough system as it is, for most mundane aspects of life on earth. So despite being the SI unit, is unlikely to take over in everyday life IMO. OTOH, arguably decimal time did make sense too, but not surprising that changing that was a bridge too far.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]