Why Metric Base 10 is a terrible system.

All my life I've detested the modern European metric system, mostly due to its use of base ten. Here is Alex Sherwood, who has been similarly fed up with base ten in mathematics generally for his entire life, and who can articulate why such a system is terrible far better than I ever could, as well as a better alternative.

[@rnbdc]

Feel free to use fractions with metric. I'm sure the units won't complain 😋

[@darkmatter6714]

The benefit of metric is compatibility and ease of conversion between different units of measure such as length, temperature, weight and volume: 1.5 kilometres = 1,500 metres = 150,000 centimetres = 1,500,000 millimetres. A litre of water (100 centilitres or 1,000 millilitres) weighs 1 kilogram (1,000 grams). The volume of 1 litre of water is 10 centimetres cubed. Water freezes at 0° Celsius and boils at a 100° Celsius. This is why the U.S. armed forces use metric in combat, because their lives literally depend on clarity and accuracy.

[@josephpadula2283]

Not the US Navy !

[@seana806]

You have to realize that water freezes at 0C and boils at 100C at sea level. The higher up in altitude you go, the higher the boiling point of water is. Since I am a huge car fanatic, metric makes it very difficult to identify a engine since some cars for example these days at 1.5L to 2.0L, there’s many engines out there with that displacement which makes it difficult to identify, especially if it’s a engine with a design flaw. If engines were still be cubic inches, would be able to identify quickly.

[@Salmagundiii]

I'm downloading this video before big base 10 finds out about it.

[@rnbdc]

🤣

[@Niyucuatro]

I think language is too big a barrier to use any number system other than base 10. The words we used are based arround base 10, so we think in base 10.

[@stephenspackman5573]

Yes, it's terrible we have no English words for a dozen and a gross. Even if there were a word for a dozen we'd be stuck with the fact that “ten” and “eleven” are made up of parts for their separate decimal digits.

[@all41tja]

in norwegian it is quite clear that it used to base 12.

[@lwilton]

@@stephenspackman5573 Originally there were single glyphs for 10 and 11. They died out over the centuries as decimal gained popularity. Note that we have "eleven" and "twelve" as separate words, but everything above that from thirTEEN to nineTEEN is just a condensation of " plus ten".

[@charlesstaton8104]

I think any base system that is consistent and that everyone uses, is the best one. U.S. ("imperial") is horrible (I'm American) in this regard. We use fractions here, decimals there; base 10 here, base 12 there, units based on the length of some dude's toenail in 1627. Even within the same unit, even on the same drawing, fasteners might be called out like 7/16" while thickness of the washers for that fastener are called out in thousandths of an inch. This is where the metric system wins. It's consistent and everyone (except Americans) uses it. Base 10 might not be the most optimal system but the time for objections to it is long past. Everyone intuitively understands it already so that is how it is going to stay. P.s. the base 12 runes didn't even seem consistent. 1, 2, and 3 did, the number of lines is the number, but after that it fell apart. After 3 we start counting angles? Or? You lost me.

[@38vocan]

I think in a more optimal world we should use the metric system in base 12. It does suck to not be able to divide by 3, 6 or 4, which is a very common operation.

[@38vocan]

But in the grand scheme of thing, the important thing is probably that we use the same base, so we can understand each other inventions. After all, if you don't want to lose precision, you can still use fractions to describe your metric measurement, and in practice we can't machine to arbitrary precision, and the specific need of each machine prevents use from using convenient whole numbers, so we will always have arbitrary digits to describe complex machines.

[@vinny142]

". It does suck to not be able to divide by 3, 6 or 4, which is a very common operation." It's only an advantage if you actually have 12 of something (or multiple of 12) and actually need to divide it by 2, 3 , 4, or 6. Actually dividing by 2 and 4 are the same and 3 and 6 are the same so you really only have two dividers, like with 10. It's a bit like saying we should go to base-24 so we can also divide by 12. :-)

[@lwilton]

Some random comments: a) There is a reason the mathematicians that designed many of the first- and second-generation digital computers used base 12. Or that CDC computers had 60-bit words. Lots of prime factors are nice. b) If you think about the representations of 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, they do have a number of points corresponding to the digit. c) You might want to look into Roman numeral fractions. Yes, there are such things, even nobody has been taught anything but the integers for 1500 years.

[@richard5652]

loved thinking on this comment

[@rayray11939]

I can remember as a young child counting the top, middle, and bottom of the number 3 to add 3 to another number.

[@patrickd9551]

Oh which computer would that be? You mean every computer that was designed around the binary system because semiconductors uses a discrete sytem of 0 and 1? How would you multiply a binary system in such a way that you would reach 12? Show me a computer that uses prime numbers as a base system to calculate anything. Encryption uses prime numbers, true, but only in conjuction with XOR operations, binary base 2 operation that flip bits. The prime number is not at the core of that calculation, the XOR operation is. Computers could use a 12 bit bus, but that was simply because of simple limitations in the technology and most importantly it was the least amount of silicon one would need to store a base 10 number. There was no need for additional bits to represent something beyond 9. But everything still worked on base2 to begin with. Base 12 was a representation. 60 bit words in CDC computers. Yes, the ONLY computer that used 60 bit wide words. The world quickly switched to 64 bit wide words, because of the ease with which it held in base 2. If base 12 or something else was so vastly superior, then it would be used everywhere today. Humans only understand base 10, but computer can use whatever you develop them around. And guess what, base 2 is vastly superior and factors of base 2 (16, 32 and 64) are the most logical conclusion for uses within that system.

[@stephenspackman5573]

@@patrickd9551 The first generation of digital computers were mechanical. Later ones used relays and vacuum tubes. There was quite some variety in bases and encoding before things settled out. CDC's 60 bit words were a strange hybrid, but they were _much_ later. We had a Cyber at school…. I'm not sure where encryption comes in (those are _very_ large primes), but 2 is a prime, and (along with minimality, of course) that's one of the things that makes it attractive for computation-there's lots of good number theory to do with prime powers.

[@lwilton]

@@patrickd9551 Almost all the first generation digital computers were decimal, typically a 10 to 12 digit plus sign BCD or bi-quinary digit representation. It took better than a decade for the newly-minted computer engineers to replace the old-school mathematicians as computer designers and start designing the things in the obvious binary way. The binary number bases were _not_ the obvious way to go at first. That only came much later that it was obvious to everyone. You can likely do math in binary and hexadecimal as easily as decimal, because you grew you doing it. The first couple generations of designers avoided it, in part because nobody was familiar with binary, and pretty much everyone thought it would be horribly confusing to everyone. At the time, they were at least partially right. As an aside, the base 10 - base 16 thing is almost identical to the Metric folks argument that Imperial units are irrational, confusing, and impossible to use. People said the same thing about binary and hexadecimal, until everyone learned in school how to operate in those bases. Now they are easy for most people. Feet, inches, and fractions that are multiple of 2 are easy for people that learned Imperial units. Of course, decimal Metric units are too. Oh, and note that feet have 12 inches, and a circle has 360 (20 * 12) degrees. These are left-overs of the Phoenicians, who used base 12 in their math a few thousand years ago.

[@Xpian]

Thank you! I grew up with the multifactorial Imperial system, even in currency. When I started out in bookkeeping, the system(s) used were base 12 below and base 20 above (there were even subunits of base 4, 12 and 16 but with the exception of base 4, few even knew the others existed unless it were one's field). Other measurements also made use of base 12 and base 20 as well as base 16. In bookkeeping alone I can never explain the ease with which one could take halves, thirds, quarters, fifths, sixths-sevenths were the first out-eighths, tenths, twelfths, etc. (And we aren't talking about repeating decimals or rounding up or rounding down to eliminate them; we're talking about things like exact thirds, exact sixteenths, etc.) No it wasn't a ridiculous illogical system with neither rhyme nor reason as so many who don't understand it try to say... it was a bloody amazing system that had its place especially when having to reckon things out with nothing more than a pencil and when higher education-especially in maths-was not a given. As a small boy of not more than four years old if that, I can still remember being taught fractions with old coins of the time, and simply being able to look down to see it all make perfect sense just visually. For many people who start to expound how metric is the be-all and end-all because it's so 'base-10 easy', I hold my tongue. However, when they start to criticise a multifactorial system that they don't even have the grey matter to understand, it's all I can do not to say: 'And past your 10 fingers, what? Do you take off your shoes to make it to 20? And if so, please do not show me how you make it to 21!'

[@Redmanfms]

British fractional currency made serious sense when dealing with actual value, i.e. gold/silver. I wish America hadn't lost it.

[@tjampman]

I was gonna make some comment about dollars being base 10. But than I realized you guys can't count money, because you need to add the tax! oh, well

[@CSkwirl]

Literally woke up, got coffee and watched this. The fact that it actually made sense it's got something going for it.....Due to age and being in Australia I work with both imperial and metric or a mix of both and don't think about such things

[@alec1575]

The idea of a caffeinated squirrel is funny since they are already a little jumpy without the caffeine

[@CSkwirl]

@@alec1575 It's a long story haha

[@danielboughton3624]

12ths were originally used for everything including inches and of course we still have a dozen eggs, 12 months, 24hr days, 360deg in a circle or a compass heading and so on. For the common person 12 is much better for dividing things up. If you are a technical field e.g. a machinist you have to do math any way around it and like their metric counterparts imperial machinists use 10ths, 100ths, 1000ths, ... The solution to most problems there is to toss the excess to get to some reasonably divisible number. If you are making a cabinet with 3 evenly spaced doors into a space that doesn't divide nicely you pick a smaller number that does and then pad out the difference in spaces on the sides or between the doors or both. Base2 is super handy for small (space efficient) representation and for on/off (binary) storage which is why it is used for computing. Hex, decimal, and octal in this case are representations of some binary state of data on a computer. You can also count much higher than 5 on one hand using base 2.

[@TurboTimsWorld]

Due to my age 54 in the UK I work both in feet and meters and as an car electronics engineer I understand binary and computer hex, BUT at home if I measure a bit of wood it could be 4ft 7 inches and 3 mm but at work my brain can't cope with car tyre size (UK spelling) 195/65 R14 for example my brain as I look at it starts to work it out mathematically But that's the odd thing in tyres is they are sold in Metric/percentage radius is Imperial

[@richard5652]

ha, I'm 60, from England. ! I too use both systems. eg when estimating lengths I might go from 2cm to 1" to 3cm!

[@VictoryWorks]

Similar age from the UK. We grew up in a time when metric was taught in school but everyone older than us was using imperial (and so were all the shops!) so we got a weird mix of both. If I am calculating I tend towards metric (due to my base 10 wired brain), if I'm estimating I tend towards imperial, but I also do a weird mix of both where I might need a piece of wood 3cm x 4cm x 4 ft long 😂

[@sheep1ewe]

In Scandinavia we use metric for general, but imperial for woodworking (originaly not British imperial but our own standard, but it later became Imperial) in addition to foot there where also another messurement "Aln! the messure of the forearm and hand, which is standarized to two fot or, today 60 cnetimeter. Only thing that does not make any sense whatsoever to me is the recent conversion from metric to foot for messuring flight height of aircraft, that one is a clear step back, but for wood and metal working me, and most people i know who want to learn in a deeper leve do use both metric and inperial in paralell for lenght and height messurement. My carpenters ruler has both scales, and it is fairly new and made in Sweden. ;-) I know theyt re made it to matric in modern time in most hardware stores, but people, my self included, still talk in imperial whan it come to dimmensions of wood and nails. 🙂 (Being born here, of course Celsius is the only option for temperature... ha ha, but there are a lot of paralell temperature scales as De Lisle, Rømer scale, etc which are far better for checking temperature in every day general use compared to the Kelvin scale which is originaly for temperatures above mercury and spirit themometers could preform by using the wawelenghts of light as referense point, so in my blacksmith it is important to know the basic of the idea of the Kelvin scale, it probably just had other names in te past, but for say, the airtemperature outside my window, using the Kelvin scale (is not wrong, but it) does not realy make much sense to be honest, but using for example the Rømer scale does.).

[@aleks_jones]

i think the first number is tread width in mm, the 2nd number is the width of the tirewall(ID to OD) as a percentage of the tread width, and then yeah for some reason the rim diameter is inches... it is very odd. thats how they are here in the USA too

[@bryandykes2586]

I can not explain the understanding I just got from this 14 minute video that I stumbled upon looking for something else!!!! And to think that you just uploaded this yesterday!!! Mind blowing 🤯

[@rhavrane]

Bonjour, Just for information : "Tito Livio Burattini (Italian scholar), who called "metro cattolico" (in Misura Universale, 1675) the length of the pendulum beating the second, thus giving, well before Borda, the name "meter" to a unit." Amicalement, Raphaël

[@AEKarnes]

I learned something new today!

[@anthonyshiels9273]

When I was in Primary School we did a lot of work on the Least Common Multiple and the Highest Common Factor. Never saw any since then and I have a University Degree in Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics.

[@miguelJsesma]

14 also has 5 and 2

[@rayray11939]

Most days it's enough for me just to keep up with base 10 math. I was talking to a retired computer analyst about base 16 recently and it took me a bit to understand it. Basically they use single digits to represent numbers 1 through 15 and number 16 gets a second digit. They used single digits letters to represent 10 through 15. There are several advantages to this in the computer world. My mind was so accustomed to base 10 that I hadn't really considered anything else. Its interesting and not that complicated once it's explained.

[@WizardClipAudio]

I concur. Base 10 metric does suck, for many of the reasons you presented. However it’s not necessary to reinvent the imperial system, or contrive a base 12 integer set. Inches are divided into fractions. They can be any sort of fraction you like, it’s just that they’re usually denoted and divided in 2, 4,8,16,etc as an optimally convenient standard. Like time signatures in music. Not all time signatures are optimally written that way either, but most of it is. I think it’s important to point out that imperial measurement system isn’t so arbitrary or primitive. Rather it’s an elegant collection of units, optimized for applicable utility, like a toolbox, as opposed to base 10 metric, which endeavors to standardized and universalize units, at the cost of being like Swiss Army Knife, lots of tools conveniently packaged into one, but none of the features perform as well as a dedicated tool would. ❤

[@Pow3llMorgan]

The ease of decimalization and multiplication by powers of ten is one of the strengths of metric IMO.

[@dwaynepenner2788]

The point of a measuring is to make thing accurate enough to do the work required, and almost as importantly create wide standardization. At some point, and sooner rather than later for any reasonable value denominator to work with, you run out of whole factors. At that point you are using either fractions or decimals. Either work, the question is which works better for you so you make fewest mistakes. I have proven that mistakes can be made with fractions and decimals, but the more resolution required the less mistakes I make with decimals, which seems to be true for most people (Most U.S. machinists who work in accuracies less than 1/64" use decimals...even while remaining in the U.S. customary system). And by the way the fundamental feature of the S.I. system is standardization in unit definitions as well as expression; base 10, specifically base 10 with using decimals not fractions, was chosen because it is the simplest way of standardizing the expression of any value regardless of magnitude. It is a common mistake that people think the primary purpose for using SI is the base 10 system of expression, it is useful, but the real importance for the SI system over the imperial, or more accurately theses days US customary system, is standardization.

[@grntitan1]

I like turtles. 🐢

[@Mandragara]

The disconnect between units of length and volume in Imperial is a death sentence IMO

[@MetroAndroid]

Thanks for showcasing this Alex. I similarly have a love for base 12.

[@nickjohnson410]

You need multiple perspectives to see in multiple dimensions and the same thing applies in math. At the end of the day you are just carving up a sphere into little parts that work for you. For example, Ocean Navigation is based on measurements that apply to boats, the people that work them, and the tools they have available, hence the Knot.

[@1sonyzz]

Better than - one fithty thousands of an inch cuz you can't have smaller measumerment than inch in imperial apparently.... yet, in metric you can go as low as nanometres and picometres... without needing supidity of 1/1000000000000000000000000000000000000 of centimetre when buying a drill bit, another stupidity is gallons and pints and all that bullshit - 1litre is 1000 mililitres it's not 3/4 and it's not 1 by something of something... plus our hands have 10 fingers and that's where 10 comes from so imperial can f**k themselves unless their hands have 1/34 of finger on a hand

[@ExtremeSquared]

Every time I have made a UI slider I use 0-60 so that 1/3rd is an option. Because I can. If the Babylonians handled base 60 then we can.

[@-PiXxel-]

Perhaps rather than picking one system and using it for everything, we should strive to become familiar with multiple and then use whichever is best suited for the task at hand.

[@JDARJISJ]

As kid growing up, I was taught and agreed, that metric base-10 was obviously the superior system. A bachelors and masters degree in engineering only reinforced that. However as I have grown older and taken to hobbies that put me to work with my hands I have come to see the benefits of the older systems. Older systems are base two (a gallon is 2^7 Oz) or base 12 (degrees on a circle, time) or the way we divide inches (base 2). If you are doing hand work, division into halves and thirds is easy and can be done with a marking device and protractor or string. Base ten metric is nice for working in base 10 math but with calculators and computers easy base ten multiplication and division is less important. Getting into a full base twelve mathematics may be more than my middle aged brain wants to deal with though.

[@KC9UDX]

Yikes this is scary. How is it possible I'm not the only one?

[@madmanmapper]

There's a time and a place for metric... mostly scientific stuff. Machinists can have decimal inches and thousandths. Pretty much anything else, though... feet and inches make way more sense. The versatility of not just fractions, but just of relatable, practical sizes. Measure a car, or a room, and you have many hundreds of centimeters... or a convenient 15 feet. You could use meters, then you're inconvenienced by at least one decimal place if you want even a semblance of accuracy. And if you have something big enough to measure in meters... you've got yards, which are practically the same.

[@joshwalker5605]

its really more the difference between fractional and decimal and less the difference between 10s and 12s. also 1 can be prime without much extra work but zero can't be unless you are ready to change a whole lot of things.

[@joshwalker5605]

I like 1/4 better than 0.25 but i'll take 0.328 over 21/64ths any day

[@maxscott3349]

​@@joshwalker5605I have a pretty easy time with either, the conversion is where things start to get unpleasant

[@JeffreyLear]

Yawn, yep you're boring me too. Metric all the way.

[@vinny142]

"So you can do lots of fractions in your head" Sure, you go right ahead and multiply 463in base-12 by 3/64th and then divide that by 23 in base-12. Go! The "advantage" of 12 being more divisible is only there if you actually have 12 of something. That's how we got to the foot being 12 inches, and an hour having 60 minutes. Nice and divisible. Ofcourse if you want to know how many inches there are in 1+19/32 of a mile then you're kind of f*cked, but at least you can divide 12 easier! Also note that even in clocks, where we actually DO divide the hour alot, we use tenths of seconds, of 60th. we use 100ths of a second, not 1/60th/60th. There is a reason for that and it is " the math is impossible". Even the UK, who had base-12 for their money but gave up on it. They had a pound that was 240 shillings and 12 pennies to the shilling. Very divisible, until you had 315 pennies,148 shillings and had to pay a pound. Good luck with that. There is a reason by metric is the dominant system and it's that in the real world it is simply easier to work with. It's not political, it's just easier. I know you want to have an easy way to divide by three, but YOU DON'T DO THAT. Sure, you can think of edge cases where it's simpler with base-12, but the fact that you have to go to edge-cases to show how great your idea is means it's not a great idea. Think of it as Toki-Pono, the language that only has 200 words. It's MUCH easier to learn than the thousands of words of other languages, its grammar is laughably simple, but saying "I am going on holiday and I'm taking the big red bucket that my grandmother gave to me in the spring of 1998" takes half a page because you have to combine a thousands words to alter their meaning to collectively represent that sentence.

[@stephenspackman5573]

So, binary then. Two is divisible by one, so _all_ digits are covered by factor pairs. And for ‘meaningful’ digits we can use ○ and ●.

[@nicholasdavidson5683]

"To the power of triangle.." haha I love this stuff :)

[@brianhiles8164]

Could have been worse. We could have been relegated to measuring in _smoots._

[@eleonn]

The best thing about this video is that most people that have seen it, by half of it they are thinking "why am I losing my time watching at this? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@anttiroppola4414]

Neither metric nor imperial. A base 12 metric system. Very interesting. All number bases are trade offs, binary and hex are too unwieldy for normal use, but have huge advantages in computing. The Sumerians used base 60 which persists in some applications to this day. Thanks

[@pixelpatter01]

If base ten for measuring carpentry was a good thing there would be 1/10" marks on our rulers and the rulers would be 10" to a foot; but they're not because of the reasons the guy talks about.

[@antherthalmhersser7239]

You guys should be running the country

[@madsfelsted2716]

I'm a shipbuilder and the ONLY unit for me is the millimeter. My car is 4175 millimeters long! I'll have my metric ruler with me in the coffin when the time comes...Btw, I'm 1780 mm high, not 10 feet and 5/64 inches or is it 80 Orios stacked times 3?....😊

[@paulrayner4514]

I'm not a mathematician this was over my head. base 10 suits me, I know how to add it, divide it, subtract it & times it. for Joe blogs on the street that's all I need to know! I think🤔

[@kevint1910]

based on this i assume you use a base 10 clock and calendar right? The fact is that base 12 is so intuitive that you don't even realize you are using it while you are using it.

[@paulrayner4514]

@@kevint1910 true, but isn't that for time, and not math? I do use base 12 occasionally when working in older properties eg joists are set at either 12", 14" or 16" centers, ordering sheet material 4'x8' actually comes as 1220mm x 2440mm😁

[@kevint1910]

@@paulrayner4514 shall i point out how many places those numbers contain vs standard measures? or that metric units are so awkward that most of them are never even used? what is that last one technically if denoted as we were told to do in grade school? 24.40 "decimeters" or was it decameters? and does any one actually use either one? nope....and "degrees C" where as little as 3 "degrees" can mean the difference between being comfortable and heat exhaustion and yes i am exaggerating it is for effect to make the point , the idea of it is sort of elegant 0 freezing 100 boiling and all. The issue is that the units that result are awkward and don't tell you as much as degrees F unless you use decimals to provide the places required to fill in the detail ...and yeah this is ALL 1000% quibbling...that is how I feel when people tell me that metric base ten is "better" because "math" you are quibbling over BS that has nothing to do with measuring or achieving accuracy.

[@RryhhbfrHhgdHhgd356]

Ironically the argument being made here is that base 12 *would* be easier for the average Joe, since it makes all the fractions used in physical measurement practically easy. Base 10 is more useful for math and science.

[@Niyucuatro]

@@kevint1910 well, even when telling the time, i represent the numbers in base 10, I write 11, not b

[@jeverett59]

@TheFatElectrician is loving this!!! Freedom units

[@scelbi8h]

You call "freedom units" the ones imposed by the british colonizers? How dumb is that?

[@rayray11939]

If Im following u correctly, one reason base 12 is easier and cleaner is that 1/3 equals .4 in base 12 instead of .3333 to infinity in base 10?

[@Str4ng3F0lk]

Correct, it has more for 'factors'. 3 is not a factor of 10; it is a factor of 12. Same with 4 and 6.

[@richard5652]

are you thinking in base 10? maybe if we thought differently it might make thinking about numbers much more intuitive?

[@maxscott3349]

That's more or less right but I'm interested to see how we would make 11/12 into a decimal

[@rayray11939]

​@@maxscott3349I'm thinking If you use A and B to represent 10 and 11 than 11/12 would be .B in decimal I think.

[@patrickd9551]

Wait what the actual???? first you start your argument by explaining divisions by half, but then at @9:30 you first divide by half and then by thirds? Just to end up at 12???? As far as the actual argument was valid (which it is not), you just destroyed the logic with that diagram. That is, if you haven't lost the viewer already with those weird symbol representations. Well you lost me already half way, but I wanted to see how much deeper one could dig. You know that the entire premise of base 10, is simply shifting the comma or adding zeros? Shifting commas and not having to deal with fractions is why base 10 math is so much more easier. Not to mention our entire language is based around base 10. We do not have a different symbol for 10 and 11, or some word. We represent base 12 in our language using base 10 words. 12 time 12 is one hundred and forty four, nothing else. You even use the word twelve, a base 10 word representing decimal 10 plus 2 Hexidecimal on the other hand is presented using letters. And only when the number rolls over you get another digit. Easy for computers, but hard to comprehend for humans because we use base 10 in our speech.

[@erictheviking6832]

How about going with a bakers dozen

[@bensabelhaus7288]

Kiddo loves the videos on old machines already. Wait until he hears his complaints about how he's being taught math articulated better than "this is stupid and confusing" while doing exactly this in his head. Love the little guy, even when hates something he is great at and will need if he wants be an astronomer. I'm more of a further historian and taught him Sumerian base 12. So much easier.

[@nouseforaname5378]

My head just exploded.. Beg my pard

[@moose5445]

It seems: if you work with numbers, base 10 is wonderful If you work with things, base 12 is preferable.

[@AEKarnes]

Working with numbers is pointless, we only work with numbers to work with things, or at least we ought to.

[@RingingResonance]

@@AEKarnes "Working with numbers is pointless" I beg to differ. Lots of physics as we know it was predicted using numbers before we even had the tools to test or discover them.

[@AEKarnes]

@@RingingResonance to quote the brilliant Frederick Windsor of the English gas lighting system: "I have a great contempt for theorists". Most of the physics used in the practical era were derived intuitively or by experiment. A very, very small amount of the theoretical or theoretically predicted physics in use today benefits the common man or regular life in any way, which is the disconnect. The sciences are becoming increasingly esoteric and not useful. This is why nonsense like the Webb telescope and those who devote their lives to things like it are useless to me, when most of the local monkeys can't even proficiently pave a length of road the way it would have been fifty years ago.

[@RingingResonance]

@@AEKarnes Well said. I want to retort (I'm Italian), but haven't come up with a better argument. I've never been much for words anyways. The sciences are becoming increasingly esoteric has never been truer.

[@moose5445]

​@AEKarnes Now is probably a good time to mention that I have a background in accounting...and and simply chuckle at the imperial vs metric debate. In the end, only one of the world's wonders was built using metric.

[@slommer5063]

I just learned

[@jamesspash5561]

Can the metric system solve for Pie?

[@nickjudd5188]

Unless you persuade pi to become rational there's no chance

[@richard5652]

lovely to think about. thank you

[@richard5652]

damn, just thought of the potential sign for 8 😞

[@JaneDoe-dg1gv]

yes! base 12 is awesome. It really should be the base for human use.

[@rhavrane]

Bonjour Alexander, I am sorry but I can' let you write such a title especially on this media. You can find as many arguments as you want, but if the metric system had the flaws you believe it would, it wouldn't be as widely used in the world. I find this video regrettable and it does not reflect the skills that you show elsewhere. In other areas, conspiracy theorists or wokists also share arguments to confirm their statements... Amicalement, Raphaël

[@AEKarnes]

I knew this one would be controversial especially to a European who uses the metric system on the regular (I have participated in and been witness to thunderous arguments about imperial vs metric) , but keep in mind there are plenty of terrible or less than adequate ideas that are in continual and wide use in the world. Also keep in mind, France tried to push the idea of metric Time, which never took hold (thankfully). There is nothing conspiratorial about discussing better number systems

[@richard5652]

ahh, debate and making people think. Love the video. Thinks (that's Thanks with a typo :))

[@rhavrane]

@@richard5652 Bonjour Richard, I fully agree with you but debating in writing and in a foreign language does not make things easier for me in terms of nuance in particular. Amicalement, Raphaël

[@waynehigden]

@@AEKarnes Interesting comment about metric time. Back in the seventies working in the Boston Naval Shipyard as a machinist apprentice the metric system was proposed to society to replace the existing system of measurement. Our instructors tried to redesign an analog clock into a 10 dial consisting of 10 numbers on the face. Didn’t take long for their efforts to show too many problems the theory created. I first found your work habits when I ran across the video about you bringing the Woburn pump system to life. I live in Burlington and travel often by the pump house house Thank you. I still have a can of clover compound in my shop.

[@DominikBelca]

omg.....

[@WOFFY-qc9te]

Metric is much easier for machines to use with ISO the multipliers which are denoted as, Micr Nano Pico etc. Imperial 12 has bases as explained, as does Octel Hexadecimal etc. There is no one system but I do agree with Mr Sherwood that 12 has more flexibility for visual representation as can be seen in the Stonemasons work. Ps NASA has difficulties with metric velocity and angular calculations. !

[@AEKarnes]

You are very correct about "there is no one best system" NASA has difficulties designing basic spacecraft proficiently as the disaster that is the space shuttle program demonstrates. I'm just an old steam engineer and definitely wouldn't know anything about radially or bilaterally symmetrical thrust profiles nor would I know about putting the manned part of the craft on top of the stack where it doesnt get hit by falling ice....

[@WOFFY-qc9te]

@@AEKarnes Mr Karnes, I struggle with the many complicate threads evolved from imperial ' standards ' (?) created plumbers who needed to be improved matters their way. With metric the only problem I have is finding a 10 mm spanner. Mr Sherwood translates the ephemeral to visual for his own understanding, I do the same which is why I dislike none tangible data and like you I used to use a screwdriver and listen and I could visualise what was in motion and not happy. I was a Predictive maintenance and Condition monitoing engineer and and I had the pleasure of meeting some fine engineers who were steam men, I found few problems on steam machinery other than those cause by too much precision !. . I very much under stand your empathy with machinery, it is a six sense and a gift I am please you have made contact to various restoration enthusiast in the UK. Have you driven the Kempton Triple Expansion Engine yet ?. Mr Karnes this book is right up your street. ' Steam in the air ' Maurice Kelly [Pen & Sward publication ] Further information. NASA ; In September of 1999, after almost 10 months of travel to Mars, the Mars Climate Orbiter burned and broke into pieces. On a day when NASA engineers were expecting to celebrate, the ground reality turned out to be completely different, all because someone failed to use the right units, i.e., the metric units! . Metric relationship with volumes, mass etc. It was Giovanni Giorgi, an Italian physicist and electrical engineer, who proved that it is possible to combine the mechanical units of this meter-kilogram-second system with the practical electric units to form a single coherent four-dimensional system by adding to the three base units, a fourth base unit of an electrical nature, such as the ampere or the ohm, and rewriting the equations occurring in electromagnetism in the so-called rationalized form. Following these developments, in 1939, the four-dimensional system based on the meter, kilogram, second and ampere was recommended to the Consultative Committee for Electricity and Magnetism (CCEM) and was approved by the International Committee for Weights and Measures (abbreviated CIPM from the French Comité international des poids et mesures) in 1946. Following suit, Ampere, Kelvin, and Candela were added as base units in 1954, and Mole was added as the 7th base unit in 1971. Today, there are seven base units: Meter (Distance), Kilogram (Weight), Seconds (Time), Ampere (Electric current), Kelvin (Temperature) and Candela (Luminosity).

[@richard5652]

I think if I was a machine, I'd prefer a simple binary, on/off number system

[@RryhhbfrHhgdHhgd356]

@@richard5652Hmm. Strangely, I think most do! 😂

[@Appalling68]

LOL!

[@sirrliv]

Math peaked with Euclid. If I had been taught The Elements in high school, I might not have pursued a history degree because I didn't have the head, stomach, or patience for anything else.

[@EscritorioSP-u4p]

You have a point.

[@keithjurena9319]

Base 10 System International benefits were eliminated by the development of pocket calculators which were then made obsolete by the pocket computer-communicator. Most metric fans I've experienced cannot process fractions. Absolutely cannot determine if 5/8 is larger or smaller than 3/4 without a calculator. These are the irrational people of the world

[@AEKarnes]

I have had exactly the same experiences. I am amazed at and scared by people who cannot incorporate the visual and physical into mathematics, but people who cannot process fractions are the least of the problems. There have been at this point several rage filled, and a couple of threatening comments on this video, of people who somehow took grave personal offense at base 10 being criticised. Alex Sherwood (the presenter) and I have been accused of everything from being wokists, to facists, to flat-earth conspiracy theorists, to sub-100 IQ intelligence, to being a gay couple. I deleted the vast majority of these comments but part of me wishes I hadn't so the mental filth and social degeneracy could be displayed for all to see. You claim that these are the irrational people of the world seems to be backed up.

[@thegreenphantom4304]

Metrics suck! Courtesy of the Linley Brothers Mfg Company😊

[@charlesspringer4709]

You are getting rather complicated in the description. Rational arithmetic is exact. It is all ratios of integers. If you want to express many of the useful ratios exactly, 12 is your number. With 12 you can make a ruler by folding. Also, the French Metric, now called SI, uses an impractical naming scheme with measure smaller than one being Greek and larger than 1 being Latin, because the intended elite users all have studied Latin and Greek. However in any workplace or setting where transcription errors or noise are possible, the multi-syllable words that all sound the same are ridiculous. The American Customary and the Imperials have simple one syllable words that can not be mistaken. No one hears "inch" and says I thought you said yards. And the scale is for humans. Now, the geniuses of the short-lived French Revolution COULD have picked one of the standard yards (I would have used the one in London) and said we are adding a second set of divisions based on multiples of 10 in which case we call it a meter and 1 meter = 1 yard, and all would be sweetness and light today. But Noooo, they had a better idea! Lets take the distance from the equator to the North Pole and divide it by one million and call that one meter. What could be easier? A complete up-their-own-backsides jackass idea. As a side note, take a look at the knobs on measuring instruments like an oscilloscope. The scales run 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 50, 100 etc. Why? Because factors of 10 are too damn big!

[@DonnyHooterHoot]

Metric is no worse, OR better than, ANY other arbitrary system of measurement. I get a kick out of the "Euros" thinking they have to translate metric to imperial. It's OK boys I "speak" both.