• Treczoks@lemmy.world
    14·
    2 days ago

    Just ask the Danish how to “calculate” their word for 90, and you will consider the French approach simplicistic.

    • Scrollone@feddit.it
      4·
      2 days ago

      In a way, Danish is more clear than French, because all numbers between 50 and 90 are based on the vigesimal (base-20) system.

      • kungen@feddit.nu
        5·
        2 days ago

        Huh? 50 is halvtreds (20 * 2.5)

        70 is actually halvfjerdensindstyve, literally “half to the four(th20) times 20”. So the base number (20) * 3.5…

        The problem is, Danish people can’t understand each other even with the simplest of words, so they just say halvfjerds.

      • Scrollone@feddit.it
        2·
        2 days ago

        70 = halfway to the fourth twenty

        In other words, three twenties are 60, four twenties are 80, halfway between them is 70.

        Same for the other ones: 50 is halfway to the third twenty, 90 is half more than the fourth twenty.

  • Batman@lemmy.world
    3·
    2 days ago

    Back in Frances time these were large numbers. One million five hundred thousand one hundred eight, like ??? That’s how people in the future will look at you when you say that number in English. Stop counting people, our brains are not meant for this

      • ThisUsernameKillsFascists@piefed.socialEnglish
        2·
        2 days ago

        Fahrenheit is an extremely useful temperature scale for the lives of humans - 0 and 100 each representing the approximate extreme (cold and hot respectively) beyond which significant exposure is dangerous to human life

      • recursivethinking@lemmy.world
        5·
        3 days ago

        That F is zeroed out on fucking Brine makes it the most absurd thing.

        Like OK there may be an argument for base 12 or base 16 (but not both)… But a mixture of water, ice, and sodium chloride?

        Like OK blame a German I guess , but at least they were smart enough to decide, “Das ist stupid”

        • Cethin@lemmy.zipEnglish
          5·
          3 days ago

          C is pretty made up too. Why water, and why sea level? Don’t complain about F if you aren’t using K, where zero actually means zero. Anything else is just picking arbitrary points that you like for one reason or another.

          • Instigate@aussie.zone
            9·
            3 days ago

            Why water

            Because it’s one of the most abundant resources available on earth that is imperative to our understanding of the existence of life and is the commonest solution regularly used by humans in scenarios where temperature is a relevant factor.

            why sea level?

            Because vast swathes of humanity live at or near sea level, where we already arbitrarily nominate the level of atmospheric pressure to be 1 ATM.

            While K has a natural zero-point, the gradation (by your logic) is entirely arbitrary as well because it’s based on C and not some other cosmological constant.

            • Cethin@lemmy.zipEnglish
              2·
              3 days ago

              I know why water was chosen. Brine also has characteristics that are useful. My point was that it’s just one (specific version of a) molecule at one specific altitude, and pressure varies, so there is no true “sea level pressure”. It is not a concrete thing where zero means zero.

              Metric I love. C is not metric though. It’s an SI unit, but not metric, as often as those are conflated. It doesn’t have any fundamental advantage over F.

          • fartographer@lemmy.world
            1·
            2 days ago

            I can’t be certain that this is the exact reason, but I believe it’s because metric units are based on measurements of fresh water at sea level. 1 kg = 1 litre = 1 m³ of fresh water at sea level. If fresh water at sea level has been used to standardize everything else, then why wouldn’t you use it as the standard to calibrate a scale of 0 (least water movement) to 100 (most water movement)?

            The problem with using K back when ⁰C were being standardized is that it’s really really difficult to get your hands on some absolute zero. Also, since we generally use ⁰C to measure things here on Earth, I’d argue that the basis for C is just as arbitrary as the basis for metric. I think the equivalent of arguing for K over C would be to argue for light years or astronomical units over kilometres.

            • Cethin@lemmy.zipEnglish
              4·
              2 days ago

              I’m not arguing for K over C. I’m arguing that C and F are both fine. People acting like C is fundamentally better are mistaken. They’re both just setting 0 as some useful value that we can still go below.

              0 (least water movement) to 100 (most water movement)

              Temperature is a measure of movement. If we can continue to lower or raise the temperature, these are not the lowest or highest values for movement.

              And people arguing for C because it’s metric are just wrong, because it isn’t metric. It’s frequently used by the same people who use the metric system, but it isn’t metric. The metric unit for temperature is K.

              I agree that K is impractical. C and F have far more utility in everyday life. In my opinion, they’re both fine. For cooking, I tend to think in C. For weather, I tend to think in F. They’re both just arbitrary choosing useful values, and this means they’re both useful for different things.

              • fartographer@lemmy.world
                2·
                2 days ago

                You know what? This is completely on me. I put words in your mouth by saying that C is just as reasonable as m, l, and g, but at no point did you voice support one way or the other. For all I know, your arguments across the spectrum may be based on absolute values. Perhaps you prefer measurements for time and distance based on the hyperfine transition of hydrogen, and weight based on atomic mass.

                I was pushing the rationale that arguing for metric units, which are based on freshwater at sea level, but against C, which is also based on (the perceived states of) freshwater at sea level, is an inconsistent argument. But, once again, you didn’t push that narrative; I made assumptions and attributed that narrative to you.

    • halcyoncmdr@piefed.socialEnglish
      8·
      3 days ago

      God forbid the units used by the average person in everyday life are easily divisible by whole numbers, not resulting in things like infinitely repeating decimals.

        • halcyoncmdr@piefed.socialEnglish
          2·
          3 days ago

          Ah yes, measuring out anything into thirds is awesome with metric. Nothing ever needs to be split into thirds.

          • Fawkes@lemmy.zip
            2·
            3 days ago

            Good point. Splitting things in to 3rds is the most common function of everything. Why, just the other day I was building a box. I started by measuring the largest face of the backplate and subtracting the thickness of the side plates so I could figure out the internal volume. Most people would have done a simple equation like x-y but I prefer to do 3((x/3) - (y/3)). It’s a much cleaner method.

      • bjorney@lemmy.ca
        11·
        3 days ago

        Yeah I hate when I have to convert temperatures between systems, and then the nice round numbers that represent common values used in everyday life like 0, 20, 30, 40, and 100 become absolutely nonsensical values like 32, 68, 86, 104 and 212

        Metric measurements are only decimals in North America because things are fabricated to be round imperial numbers for the American market. When you buy a piece of lumber in Europe it’s cut to 45x95mm which (shockingly) converts to the absolutely nonsensical 1.77165x3.74016 inch two by four

        • halcyoncmdr@piefed.socialEnglish
          4·
          3 days ago

          When you buy a piece of lumber in Europe it’s cut to 45x95mm which (shockingly) converts to the absolutely nonsensical 1.77165x3.74016 inch two by four

          Ah yes, nice round numbers there as well with metric. Why isn’t it just 50x100mm? And that conversion is not even the imperial measurement of a 2x4, and you clearly don’t understand where the dimensions come from.

          There are nominal dimensions, and actual dimensions for lumber. The name 2x4 is the nominal dimension, the rough size before drying and planing. Between the forest and the hardware store, a board loses material twice.

          1. A log goes through a sawmill and gets cut into rough boards. At this point, a 2x4 really is about 2" x 4". Green (freshly cut) wood contains 30% or more moisture.

          2. The boards go into a kiln where hot air drops the moisture content to about 19%, as water leaves the cells, the board shrinks. The dried boards are rough and uneven. A planer shaves all four sides smooth. S4S (Surfaced Four Sides) means all four faces are planed. The planer removes another 1/8" or so from each face.

          Result: a board that started at 2" x 4" ends up at a standard measurement of 1-1/2" x 3-1/2".

          Now to get back to the metric equivalent… that 45x95mm board… starts with a nominal dimension of 47x100mm. Neither the nominal or actual dimensions are nice round numbers here, although at least the actual dimensions at the end are a multiple of 5. Why some places also refer to these as a 2x4, well they’re the equivalent even though the actual size is completely unrelated.
          UK example

          • bjorney@lemmy.ca
            2·
            3 days ago

            Not sure why you assumed I didn’t already know that (I did), but thanks for the completely pointless off topic essay I guess

      • WIZARD POPE💫@lemmy.world
        9·
        3 days ago

        God forbid units used by the average person in everyday life are easily converted between, not resulting in things like ‘how many feet are in a mile’.

          • WIZARD POPE💫@lemmy.world
            5·
            3 days ago

            The main conversions would be betwren meters and centimeters ot in your case feet and inches. Those happen way more often.

            And as soon as you get slightly out of most everyday lives but still quite everyday into the realm of unit conversion betwren different things like volume, speed, power what have you imperial just falls apart.

      • Dookieman12@piefed.socialEnglish
        16·
        3 days ago

        Oligarchs hijack the government to oppose the will of people, obviously that means every single US American wholeheartedly supports their oppressors. You must read so many books to be that smart.

  • rumba@lemmy.zipEnglish
    6·
    2 days ago

    Me in high school french:

    70: soixante-dix ohhh trippy, 60 10, why not start at 50, that’s strange so 80 will be soixante-vingt (60 20) right? … right?

    80: quatre-vingt 4 20’s?

    but why 60 20 and then 4 20?

    • Mordred_vat@lemmy.world
      2·
      2 days ago

      Swiss people do. Belgians still use four-twenty, alongside septante and nonante, which is a whole other level of absurd

    • BlaestEgnen@feddit.dk
      8·
      2 days ago

      What’s wrong about it?

      Halvfjerds, half fourth. Clearly that’s seventy.

      But it’s short for halvfjerdsindstyvende. Half fourth’s in twenties. Yep that’s seventy my friend

  • Manticore@lemmy.nz
    3·
    2 days ago

    Unlike English when the name for those is seven-tens, eoght-tens, nine-tens?

    Or “four score (20) and seven years ago” (4x20, +7= 87)

    Or Roman numerals being like XIV (10, + (5-1) = 14)

    …the numbers have always been maths. Always

  • Takapapatapaka@tarte.nuage-libre.frFrançais
    35·
    3 days ago

    🤓 Technically there are septante, octante/huitante, nonante, but it’s either considered local to some region (belgium, switzerland, etc) or old-school