Should the USA go metric?

[linkxsc]

Well as a person of much experience in the art of chefery.

All i can say on the subject is you're all a buncha scrubs who need to get over yourselves. Like seriously. HUR DUR SCALES R HARD, MEASURING CUPS, STOOPID AMERIKJINS DERP. Seriously you're a bunch of imbeciles on this portion of the debate and you should all be ashamed.

FURTHERMORE. When i get a recipe that calls for metric units, know what I do. I turn the damn measuring cup around, and read the other side. Like a mature, well rounded (c wut i did der?) educated individual.

Then I bake some cookies, grab some milk, and my bird, play some KSP, and enjoy myself.

Too bad yall with your issues with all these different ways of doing it will never enjoy chocolate chip cookies on the level that I make them.

Cause my recepie calls for another outlandish unit. "X bags of vanilla jello pudding mix" (ofcourse you can use other flavors too)

Edited June 16, 2015 by linkxsc

[Camacha]

[...]

Curses and swearing like in your posts automatically disqualify you from the discussion, no matter how valid any argument may be. However short-sighted we are, the discussion has so far remained civilized.

Edited June 16, 2015 by Camacha

[linkxsc]

Sry man. Childish arguments (specifically the last few pages about scales, sticks of butter, pinches, and cups) begit childish responses.

[Camacha]

Sry man. Childish arguments (specifically the last few pages about scales, sticks of butter, pinches, and cups) begit childish responses.

It is okay. You can bake us all some great cookies and we might forgive you

[pincushionman]

Okay, everyone who's going on and on about whether one system or the other is inherently better than the other just needs to stop, because they're not. I guarantee that if the whole world were forced to switch to some arbitrary system based on squigs and foors and lops, there'd be a whole lot of griping and complaining, but ten years from now we'd all be using it just fine. Metric has a lot going for it, particularly unit conversion, but when you get down to it the basis of everything, the meter, is just as arbitrary as the foot, because it's historically based on the circumference of the earth, and the scale of that value is meaningless to most people. And the "imperial" system doesn't have any more convincing argument about being better, even though the length measurement bases are supposed to be based on sizes we see in everyday life, like the length of a person's foot, knuckle, or the distance from nose tip to thumb on an outstretched arm.

You know the real reason the conversion isn't happening? It's because the problem with changing everything to metric is...well, changing everything to metric. People in this thread keep on talking about road signs in the interstate system, but that's just the tip of the iceberg. Let's get this straight: changing the signage (and the paradigm for how the system is understood - it's not just a matter of switching the signs out) is a big enough job by itself. But then you also have the US highway system, which is a whole separate system, and it would have to be changed at the same time. And the federal government doesn't actually do the work on this; that's the responsibility of the states. So you have to convince each state to do this in the same time frame or you're going to get a gigantic cluster. And the states have to worry about changing their own highway systems in the same time frame. And county roads. And municipal streets. Which are controlled by sub-state entities of one sort or another.

Is the scale of this starting to sink in? Oh, and this is just the part that is visible to joe citizen. For large parts of the country, "sectioning" of counties is based on square-mile regions, separated by major roads. Now these obviously won't be square kilometer regions; no one is going to tear up established infrastructure just to make it consistent with the new system. So you're left with a dilemma: do you continue to make new construction based on the old legacy system, even though you're committed to otherwise using metric? Or do you make new construction based on kilometer, with a paradigm switch between old and new construction? Replacing every road sign in the country is peanuts compared with figuring out how to deal with the change.

And that's just infrastructure. What about business? There are billions of business, engineering, and manufacturing documents that would be out of compliance, plus tooling that needs replaced to adapt to a new system. Converting this data costs time and money, but you also need to support all the existing stuff, so you have to keep the legacy system around anyway! US businesses and workers are already facing substantial financial competition from foreign suppliers, adding this cost for little benefit (because you don't actually change your product definition unless you have to) is not a decision to be made lightly. We already deal with this to a certain extent with customers and suppliers who need the other system, but forcing a full-on switch exacerbates the problem.

People will complain about thinking that one system or the other is better for some reason, but that's just us being stubborn. The holdup on using metric here is the scale of the conversion effort, and the cost associated with it. And it's bigger than people realize.

That said, I would accept a true switch to metric in a heartbeat if someone presented a realistic plan to actually accomplish it. Okay, I'm of my soapbox. It wasn't a very good soapbox anyway. I'm just getting sick of the "this is better!" "No, THIS one is better!" BS.

- - - Updated - - -

And before anybody replies with "hey the REST of the world already did it!", I recognize that is true. That doesn't mean it wasn't costly and there was no wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Edited June 17, 2015 by pincushionman

[PakledHostage]

That said, I would accept a true switch to metric in a heartbeat if someone presented a realistic plan to actually accomplish it. Okay, I'm of my soapbox. It wasn't a very good soapbox anyway. I'm just getting sick of the "this is better!" "No, THIS one is better!" BS.

You're right that this debate is getting tiring, but I'm not sure your post puts a lid on it. As you say, we'd all get used to it if the whole world suddenly switched to some arbitrary system. But that's just it: The whole world switching to that arbitrary system would standardize measurements around the globe. As it is, the Metric system is used in 95% of the world, while the last hold-out has enough economic power that its stubbornness affects everyone else. It would seem to be the path of least resistance for the US to finally switch too, but that doesn't seem to be likely any time soon. And even if it was, there would be significant hurdles to overcome.

That doesn't mean it is impossible though. Both Canada and Australia switched over in the 70's. Most of the Canadian prairie are still divided up into 1 mile by 1 mile sections and that isn't ever going to change, but the country survived the transition. On a per-capita basis, it probably wasn't any cheaper for Australia and Canada to make the change than it would be for the USA to do it, given their vast areas and relatively small populations.

But you're right. You can come up with a million and one reasons not to get started, so we all may as well just suck it up and live it.

[Shpaget]

Well as a person of much experience in the art of chefery.

...

"X bags of vanilla jello pudding mix"

Haha.

[kurja]

But you're right. You can come up with a million and one reasons not to get started, so we all may as well just suck it up and live it.

Yea, a lot of countries have switched from a system of measurement to another, and currency to another etc and it's not like it was practically impossible. Even if you have to 'change everything' and it may be expensive. But usa changing to metric doesn't seem to be happening anytime soon so we'll just whine about it on the internet

Although Pincushionman is wrong about one thing - that one system of measurement wouldn't be better than another. Sure anyone can learn to do things in whatever units but for engineering & science metric is just simply better. For other uses it makes no difference if something is in gallons or cubic centimeters or whatever.

[*Aqua*]

@pincushioman

Because of the scale of the switch I proposed a transitional period of, let's say, 20 years. That's long enough to slowly replace everything. As I said you don't have to do that over night. During that period whenever an imperial unit is used the metrical unit has to stand aside it. That way people will become used to it and include it in all the stuff they are doing.

That's also how the switch to the € in Europe worked: Before giving out the new bills and coins there was a transitional period of a few years when all accounting had to be done both in the national currency and in €. This made the switch very smooth.

For large parts of the country, "sectioning" of counties is based on square-mile regions, separated by major roads. Now these obviously won't be square kilometer regions; no one is going to tear up established infrastructure just to make it consistent with the new system.

I don't see the problem. Instead of a mile you just say 1.6 km and you're good to go. Nobody said you have to restructure everything just to have nice round numbers. You obviously do it only when it's convient (speed limits, etc.).

There are billions of business, engineering, and manufacturing documents that would be out of compliance, plus tooling that needs replaced to adapt to a new system. Converting this data costs time and money, but you also need to support all the existing stuff, so you have to keep the legacy system around anyway!

This isn't a problem either. Norms are constantly changing. People are already keeping legacy stuff because of that.

Especially tax comes to my mind: In my country business have to keep all accounting of the past 20 years to have a proof that they paid taxes back then. To correctly calculate that numbers you have to have a copy of the out-dated tax laws. Another example is the construction industry. They also archive their stuff for at least 20 years to have proof they respected the norms at that time.

[Camacha]

That said, I would accept a true switch to metric in a heartbeat if someone presented a realistic plan to actually accomplish it. Okay, I'm of my soapbox. It wasn't a very good soapbox anyway. I'm just getting sick of the "this is better!" "No, THIS one is better!" BS.

Which system is better is obvious, as it was invented for a couple of good reasons and fulfils that job beautifully. It is just whether you think that the short term cost of switching is worth the long term yield, and how you are going to sell it to the population.

[Jouni]

Okay, everyone who's going on and on about whether one system or the other is inherently better than the other just needs to stop, because they're not.

Well, actually the whole point of the metric system was to design a new system of measurement that would be inherently superior to the legacy systems used around the world, and then adopt it universally. Even the US customary units are metric these days – they're just defined by using various rather unwieldy constants.

[Camacha]

Well, actually the whole point of the metric system was to design a new system of measurement that would be inherently superior to the legacy systems used around the world, and then adopt it universally.

Indeed. Suggesting that this is a subjective matter does not fly. Within itself, each system functions, but that does not mean there are no clear perks.

[LordFerret]

... I turn the damn measuring cup around, and read the other side. ...

lol ... Yea that ^

The picture of the Pyrex measuring cup should have spelled it out. I guess they don't have those in Europe (or wherever)?

[Shpaget]

Of course we have them.

But when a recipe calls for 100g of sugar, a cup will do you little good if it's graduated in ml.

[*Aqua*]

Then look at the size of the sugar package. If it's 100 g just pour everything in. If it's 200 g then use half of it. It's usually sufficent and easy to eyeball such things.

Don't act as you don't know a thing or two. People aren't stupid.

Edited June 17, 2015 by *Aqua*

[rtxoff]

Judging from the poll i'd say that is an huge victory for the pro metric fraction.

[Guest]

The only reason we still use the imperial system is because we like pissing everyone off. If everyone in the world would just ignore us, the fun of pissing people off would slowly fade away, and we would quietly switch over to what everyone else is using. (go ahead and laugh. this is more true than you could possibly imagine).

[Camacha]

The only reason we still use the imperial system is because we like pissing everyone off. If everyone in the world would just ignore us, the fun of pissing people off would slowly fade away, and we would quietly switch over to what everyone else is using. (go ahead and laugh. this is more true than you could possibly imagine).

The USA is the Texas of the world

[kurja]

Of course we have them.

But when a recipe calls for 100g of sugar, a cup will do you little good if it's graduated in ml.

And what if the recipe asks for a quarter pound of sugar and your cup is graduated in fl ounces? Disaster?

This discussion is even sillier than the imperial units.

[linkxsc]

Thing I think is kinda funny about a lot of these posts. Is that the general consensus is that the US is being lazy to switch over. Officially we are. And ever since 2nd grade, I've learned both systems, all the way up through Engineering school where 95% of our work was done in metric. (thermo class) Note that our machining courses, all our math had to be done in imperial though (because all the old lathes and mills were all built with mils in mind, and buying new 1s built with metric in mind for controls.... well they certainly aren't cheap)

Never had any problems with other countries either submitting metric designs built to inch spec for production. Actually I've run into more problems with old machinists turning out parts that are backwards (due to a change in the standard of drawings, that happened a number of years ago.)

Two things irritated me more than anything regarding this matter when I visited US - miles and gallons. My car had mph speedometer and all roads have miles, not km. My frustration was even more when I had to remember that there were actually two kinds of miles - one ~1.6 km and another nautical one ~1.8 km. I always used the wrong one when I had to estimate the distances. Having been used to kilometers my mind simply accepted the sign 220 as 220 km, not 220 miles.

Honestly, I wonder if you're actually serious. I've been traveling all my life. I go to Germany, my speedometer is in Km/Hr, the signs are in Km. I don't need to do a mental conversion into mph, to figure out its going to be a half hour for me to get from where I am, to where I'm going. I come back to the US, with a car that says mph, and the road signs say I'm 96 miles from seattle. Its not difficult. If you're trying to convert stuff into your system like that (and then bringing in the nautical mile is the real thing that makes it ridiculous) thats your own problem, not a problem with the US using Miles for distance.

Unless of course you brought your car over here... but that makes no sense either, because of the probably 50 rental cars I've ridden in in various countries. All of them that were for metric focused markets had Km/Hr in bold, and mph in small within the speedometer, just like most cars in the US have both systems included. Only cars I ever see that DON'T have both systems on them with regards to speed, is sports cars, and some older 50s-60s american cars.

Haha.

(on mention of pudding mix)

Hey some old lady taught me a number of years ago to throw a pack of pudding mix in with the batter when baking a lot of cookies. Cause it adds flavor, and it keeps the cookies soft and delicious for a few days longer than without (nothing sucks more, than getting home. wanting a cookie, biting into it, and having it be all hard and depressing when you just made them the other day)

lol ... Yea that ^

The picture of the Pyrex measuring cup should have spelled it out. I guess they don't have those in Europe (or wherever)?

Well in visits to Japan, England, Greece, Italy, and Germany, I saw them in all of the people I visited's houses. Were other brands but were basically the exact same thing.

TBH I can't imagine trying to run a kitchen without something like that.

[Shpaget]

And what if the recipe asks for a quarter pound of sugar and your cup is graduated in fl ounces? Disaster?

This discussion is even sillier than the imperial units.

Almost.

I tend skip the recipes in imperial units. Not only are there usually metric equivalents out there, but I often have problems following an American recipe due to the ingredients. Some include stuff that is not stocked in local stores.

[damerell]

It takes up less space because the whole set nests inside itself. Furthermore two cups are a pint, two pints are a quart, four quarts are a gallon, and 42 gallons are a barrel of oil as traded on the world commodity markets. Its really not hard.

Only one of which measurements is actually one the world agrees on. The US fluid ounce is 1.04 of an Imperial floz, the US pint is 16 US floz where an Imperial pint is 20 floz, and so the quart and gallon come out about 83% of the size. Hence the US saying that "a pint's a pound the world round" (er?).

Cups are really insane when you're doing volumetric measurement of compressible substances.

[linkxsc]

Only one of which measurements is actually one the world agrees on. The US fluid ounce is 1.04 of an Imperial floz, the US pint is 16 US floz where an Imperial pint is 20 floz, and so the quart and gallon come out about 83% of the size. Hence the US saying that "a pint's a pound the world round" (er?).

Cups are really insane when you're doing volumetric measurement of compressible substances.

Never had to measure the volume of too many compressable substances in my kitchen.

Though usually compressable gasses are measured in terms of pressure, temp, and/or volume.

Of course we have them.

But when a recipe calls for 100g of sugar, a cup will do you little good if it's graduated in ml.

Then I pull out my trusty kitchen scale, tare it out with a small glass bowl, and measure out what I need.

Dont try and push your argument by trying to measure mass by volume when you dont have to.

And what if the recipe asks for a quarter pound of sugar and your cup is graduated in fl ounces? Disaster?

This discussion is even sillier than the imperial units.

See above. Minor pressing of a button to switch modes of the scale MAY be necessary.

Almost.

I tend skip the recipes in imperial units. Not only are there usually metric equivalents out there, but I often have problems following an American recipe due to the ingredients. Some include stuff that is not stocked in local stores.

Well cant fault you for not having stuff in stores. Periodically I like to take stabs at a lot of asian dishes, and run into problems getting spices called for. But my local supermarket has been getting better about those kinds of things.

Edited June 17, 2015 by linkxsc
fixing quotes

[Shpaget]

Then I pull out my trusty kitchen scale, tare it out with a small glass bowl, and measure out what I need.

Dont try and push your argument by trying to measure mass by volume when you dont have to.

You misunderstood.

My reply was to the suggestion that one should use a measuring cup for cooking purposes, which is not very useful in Europe, since dry ingredients are usually expressed as mass.

[LordFerret]

...

Cups are really insane when you're doing volumetric measurement of compressible substances.

I'll guess brown sugar (with molasses) counts as one of them; Usually when measuring a cup of it, it's intended it's packed into the cup.