Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.
- 75
- 4
PaperclipPerfector
4mo ago
(text post)
1929 thread views
Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
If it were up me to update the calendar for the next century, I would put us on 13 months of 28 days each, and make the Saturdays of every month line up with the moon phases; full, half, and new moons would all be on Saturdays.
There would be only one leftover day in three out of four years, and two leftover days in the leap years. I would put the annual leftover day on the winter solstice, and call it New Year’s Day, the day without a month, and I would put the leap day between October and November, and call it Election Day.
The 13th month would be between May and June and it would be called “Leftober”.
Nah, as someone who has had heated arguments with people who are so adamant about the US adopting the metric system that they casually toss off metric units in casual speech as if they don't expect people to think they're insufferable dicks, the only calendar change I will support is a metric one.
The only SI unit of time is the second, so we'll start there. 100 seconds to the minute, 100 minutes to the hour, 10 hours to the day. 10 days a week, 10 weeks a month,.10 months a year. Of course, we wouldn't use those names; we'd redefine the second in terms of the metric day, so these hours would be decidays, years kilodays, etc.
Obviously, days wouldn't reliably track to sunrise and sunset, let alone anything like moon phases or seasons, but people who cite this as a reason my system is impractical are missing the point — the metric system isn't about making units that have any relationship to our everyday lives, it's about making the units divisible by ten. This is the information age. We have accurate clocks that can track time to a miniscule degree based on the half-life of a cesium atom, why the hell are we concerned about astronomical shit? Are you some fucking 5th century farmer who can't read and needs to count moon phases so you'll know when to plant your crops? Hell, no; the time is whatever the hell your phone says it is. It's time we get this shit in step with the 21st century.
Also, the fact that you'd add an extra month and not call it Smarch is borderline criminal.
Your displeasure is misplaced. There's a very good reason why our time measurements are centered around a solar day. When we someday leave the cradle of Mother Earth forever we might switch to a kilo- and mega- second timekeeping method, but as long as all our daily activities are dependent on the Sun's position in the sky the day of 86400 seconds is there to stay.
In contrast, there's nothing about US customary units that makes them have any relationship to our everyday lives. They are as arbitrary as metric units, but at least with metric units conversions are simple and intuitive.
Customary units aren't arbitrary. If I need to measure feet without a tape measure I can use my own feet and get a reasonable approximation. For inches I can use the distance between knuckles. The mile is based on how far you travel in one minute at normal highway speeds (at least in the days of the 55 mph speed limit, assuming 5 mph of leeway), a gallon is based on the amount of milk a family of four uses between grocery trips, the pound is based on the weight of the average cantaloupe, etc.
Joking aside, the point is that these measurements aren't arbitrary, but based what people find useful and convenient in their everyday lives. When metric proponents are pressed on the time question, they always point out that dividing the day into ten 100 minute hours doesn't result in any useful units of measurement. Well, so what? The last I checked, the distance between the equator and the north pole doesn't have any reasonable relationship to my everyday life, why should I expect units of time to? And the argument about ease of conversion never made any sense to me either; I couldn't tell you the last time I had to convert between customary units. Maybe occasionally when altering a recipe, but even then it's only a mild inconvenience that wouldn't even be appreciably improved by a switch to metric. It's definitely not worth changing our entire system over. I just find most of the metrification arguments dumb, because they never seem to apply in any other contexts.
This part is confusing two entirely separate things:
One is the need for an independently verifiable definition of your measures, these days generally based on fundamental physical constants. Instead of building your system on a prototypical example and then accumulating measurement errors outward from it. Every system needs this, and in fact your current imperial units are defined as fractions of SI units, piggybacking on the definitions work of metric.
The other is the scale of the default unit, which is completely independent from your method of definition. After deciding to base the meter on the earth's circumference the actual fraction can still be freely chosen. The meter was picked specifically as a length useful in everyday life, it's pretty much the same scale as a yard.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link