Used a couple of US recipes recently and most of the ingredients are in cups, or spoons, not by weight. This is a nightmare to convert. Do Americans not own scales or something? What’s the reason for measuring everything by volume?

  • andrewta@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    Exactly. How is a foot anymore arbitrary then a meter?

    Or a cup anymore arbitrary then an ounce?

    • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      3 months ago

      Imperial measurements were based on arbitrary things, metric has specific scientific definitions for their weights.

      1l of water is 1kg at sea level, why the fuck is kings foot size the defacto foot?

      • GamingChairModel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        3 months ago

        Imperial measurements were based on arbitrary things, metric has specific scientific definitions for their weights.

        What do you mean? A pound is legally defined as 0.45359237 kilograms.

        And the kilogram is defined:

        The kilogram, symbol kg, is the SI unit of mass. It is defined by taking the fixed numerical value of the Planck constant h to be 6.62607015×10^−34 when expressed in the unit J⋅s, which is equal to kg⋅m^2 ⋅s^−1, where the metre and the second are defined in terms of c and ΔνCs.

        These are all currently defined off of the same universal constants, just with different multipliers, which are all arbitrary numbers: 6.62607015 is just about as arbitrary as 0.45359237. Hell, the number 10 is arbitrary, too, so we still use a system for time based on dividing the Earth’s day into 24 and 60.

        Like, I get that there’s some elegance in the historical water-based definitions derived from the arbitrary definition of length, but the definition of “meter” started from about as arbitrary a definition as “foot” (and the meter was generally more difficult to derive in the time of its adoption based on the Earth’s dimensions).

      • DaDragon@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        I’ll nitpick that said definition is also arbitrary. Why is it 1l of water at sea level, and not molecular weight of the water? And why a Liter anyway.

        Even metric units like time are somewhat arbitrary. Why is a second based on caesium frequency, and not some other element?

        • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          I’ll nitpick that said definition is also arbitrary. Why is it 1l of water at sea level, and not molecular weight of the water? And why a Liter anyway.

          Why? Because 1L is 1000 Cubic centimeters, which takes 1000 calories to raise 100 degrees to boiling point.

          Nothing is arbitrary with metric, everything is also directly related to every other measurement.

          • TheCannonball@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            3 months ago

            Because 1 Drakon is 1000 Cubic 100tholians, which takes 1000 Vornies to raise 100 degrees on the Flugar scale to boiling point.

            Metric is very scientific, but it was made through arbitrary means. They chose to make it easier than imperial by using divisions of 10. But it’s all based on a single measurement that they made up through arbitrary means.

            “We have this length called a meter. How do we define it? Let’s use it to measue something in nature and then use that measurement to define it.”

      • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        Until a few years ago, a kilogram was defined by a block of metal.

        From 1799 to 1960, the metre was defined by another block of metal. Before 1799, it was defined by a measurement that was hard to verify.

        That kind of sounds arbitrary.

        • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          On March 30, 1791, the French Academy of Sciences defined the length of a meter. Before this date, there were two definitions to this measure of length: The first was based on the length of a pendulum and the second was based on a fraction of the length of a half-meridian, or line of longitude. The French Academy chose the meridian definition. This defined one meter as one ten-millionth of the distance from the Equator to the North Pole.

          The meter is the basic unit of distance in the International System of Units (SI), the world’s standardized system of measurement. Since the 1960s, all countries have adopted or legally recognized the SI. As a universal standard of measure, the meter helped ease the exchange of commerce and scientific data.

          However, the definition of a meter has changed since 1791. In 1983, the meter got its current definition. The meter is defined as the length of the path travelled by light in a vacuumduring a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second.

          The meter was never to do with metal, and every metric definition is scientifically found, not based off of someone’s foot.

          • NoIWontPickAName@kbin.earth
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            3 months ago

            You are way overthinking this.

            Also, a foot is just a scientific as any other definition as long as you use the same foot every time.

            Can you get me All of the things that I would need to Measure the speed of light in a vacuum, then do the math to divide all that?

            Because that is what the average layman would need to verify what a meter is.

            • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              9
              ·
              3 months ago

              Also, a foot is just a scientific as any other definition as long as you use the same foot every time.

              That king is looooooong dead

              • NoIWontPickAName@kbin.earth
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                3 months ago

                And yet if we were to take something and make it the same length, We would have a rule about how long it was.

                We could even call it something like a ruler, or whatever the metric equivalent of a yardstick is, a meter stick maybe.

                • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  6
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  And than what happens when it’s destroyed? You don’t have anything to verify it with, and using a rulered rule to rule will lead to progressively larger deviations from the true original.

                  • howrar
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    This isn’t any different from metric systems. If all meter sticks are destroyed, then what do you do? Build everything up again to be able to measure the distance travelled by light in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458 seconds. The procedure would be exactly the same for feet, except you measure the distance travelled in 0.3048/299,792,458 seconds.

                  • NoIWontPickAName@kbin.earth
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    I don’t disagree with you really, I just think you’re overthinking it.

                    It just doesn’t matter in 99.99% of cases and for the ones that it does we have metric.

                    Do I wish more things in life were metric?

                    Fuck yes I do, I hate fractions so much, like not normally but when it comes time to have to do a conversion…

          • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            A fraction of the Earth’s diameter isn’t a sound scientific reasoning to define a length. And after that, the definition reverted back to a similar definition of a foot, a fixed length of an item, similar to a foot.

            The two main benefits of the metric system are the decimalized behavior of its units and that the scientific community adopted it early, creating additional units from the standard and allowing for greater precision of the initially defined units over time.

            However, the value in the meter being its length is the same as everyone agreeing the Prime Meridian goes through Greenwich, UK; it is because everyone agrees to it.