While We Wait: Part 2

[Lord_Iggy]

I would argue that based on your own statements elsewhere that you do not qualify as a normal baseline sample of the population. But seriously, which is easier to make sense of? 0.1666666..., or 1/6? 0.08333333..., or 1/12? 0.71428571..., or 5/7? The last one doesn't really apply to Standard, sure, but one is much easier for most people to visualize (and mathematically, precise).

If you handed me a diagram and told me to build something I'd want it in Metric. If you want to tell me a guy is 1.86m tall, I'll tell you to give it to meet in feet and inches, because I can visualize it better. A large part of that has to do with what you're raised on, but fractions are by and large easier for the general populace to work with, and are better for quick and dirty measurements. Precision only matters when precision matters, which in the every day, is not that often.

Now, move it to While We Wait.

Okay, moving this little discussion into a slightly more appropriate place.

Unfortunately, not everything simplifies down to nice, simple fractions (though you could argue that precision is not absolutely necessary). I personally find it easier to use, decimals, though metric isn't forced to use them. You can say 'a quarter of a meter', or '2 and a half cm'.

 

[Luckymoose]

nevermind.

 

[Symphony D.]

Unfortunately, not everything simplifies down to nice, simple fractions (though you could argue that precision is not absolutely necessary). I personally find it easier to use, decimals, though metric isn't forced to use them. You can say 'a quarter of a meter', or '2 and a half cm'.

Actually, that's not true. Most numbers you are likely to meet (Pi, e, most reals) will simplify down into infinite sequences of fractions. In fact, that's how your calculator is able to figure them out and spit a decimal number out at you that is accurate to within the number of numbers it displays.

 

[Lord_Iggy]

Infinite sequences of fractions are not "nice, simple fractions" though.

 

[Symphony D.]

The argument that some numbers are not nice fractions is mostly irrelevant. Most numbers that are not nice fractions are definitely not nice decimals, nor are they common measurements in construction or measurement that you would encounter. You buy 2"x4" boards or cut 1/8" off, not Square Root 7" tubing.

If I give you a ruler, which is easier to figure out? 1/8, or 0.125? This is why fraction they are easier to work with in every day operations--you are being told by the fraction precisely how many segments to cut something into instead of having to tabulate it in your head by adding them up to get a whole unit. It is a quicker mental estimation for a physical object. Getting decimals right involves either redoing that (adding more time) or having a very precise instrument (adding more complexity). Fractions also consume less character space. You may not agree with it, but that's why the system was mostly developed in the first place--it's easier for most people to work with and more practical for the every day environment. Metric is useful for precise engineering and measurement--which are not things most of us do every day.

The reason Standard uses 12 is because it is a superior number for fractions as it can be broken in half, thirds, fourths, or sixths very easily (no decimals). 10 can only be broken in half or fifths.

 

[Lord_Iggy]

Okay, I agree with your point about fractions being easier when you need to cut things into equal segments, but they're much harder to add and compare, whereas there is very little confusion with decimals.

Heck, it seems that this has become an argument where neither of our opinious will change.

 

[Symphony D.]

Okay, I agree with your point about fractions being easier when you need to cut things into equal segments, but they're much harder to add and compare, whereas there is very little confusion with decimals.

I'd agree to that. Most instances of measurement (again, unless you're building something) don't tend to involve arithmetic, or are on such scales (greater than a foot) where the fractions are irrelevant.

Heck, it seems that this has become an argument where neither of our opinious will change.

Arguments aren't hostile things. Those are fights. They typically involve violence and cursing. Discard your foolish modern notions of respecting other people's ideas. Why do you think philosophy was even invented? To convince other people they were wrong! Put another way:

I am sick of hippies trying to tell me that someone's Opinion can't be wrong because it's thier [sic] OPINION. That's . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ., plenty of Opinions are wrong. Hey, it's my OPINION that dogs have eight legs and make a sound like a car horn every time they take a piss. If I told you that, would you say, "Okay Gabe I respect your opinion, maybe they do have eight legs." or would you call me an idiot?

Arguing is only bad if you don't genuinely care about what you're arguing and also don't care to argue for the sake of arguing.

 

[Lord_Iggy]

Hmm, I care, but not enough to fight to force other people to abandon current systems which work fine (not as fine as metric , but still functional).

Anyway, I have to go to sleep, so I'll cut off my response until later.

 

[Niklas]

If someone describes someone as 6' 3'', I know immediately that it's somewhere above 1.80, but I'll have to count a bit to realize it's somewhere around 1.87. Yes I was born with the metric system.

Clearly what you call the Standard system is less precise, that much you agree with, but I would argue that this preciseness is not only useful for technical or scientifical purposes. Whenever arithmetics is involved, Standard becomes cumbersome to use, and don't tell me arithmetics is uncommon in everyday life.

As an example, something that has a price given /hg, how much does a kg cost? Just add a 0 and you're there.

 

[Symphony D.]

Multiplying by 16 to go from ounce to a pound is scarcely more difficult. Again, I'm not arguing that Metric doesn't work. I'm saying that it isn't the end-all, be-all system that is superior in every single regard to all possible alternatives. It has distinct advantages. It also has very distinct disadvantages; like having to put up with the French tyranny of Système International and its lumps of iridium and platinum. That is why I'm bothering to point out fractions.

Metric is also ultimately as arbitrary system of measurement as those it has generally replaced--it is calibrated to fit with preexisting human conceptions; for example, there's no reason for a second to be defined as "9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom." Why isn't it 9,192,631,771? Or just a flat 9 billion? Or 10 billion, given that's an even rounder number? Any measurement used by humans is inherently fickle as now it all has to be related back to existing measurements. So Metric, for all its precision, is as inherently unintuitive in its basis as any other system which sets the standard for measurement as however long the King's foot happens to be at the time, or what have you.

 

[Niklas]

Metric is also ultimately as arbitrary system of measurement as those it has generally replaced--it is calibrated to fit with preexisting human conceptions; for example, there's no reason for a second to be defined as "9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom." Why isn't it 9,192,631,771? Or just a flat 9 billion? Or 10 billion, given that's an even rounder number? Any measurement used by humans is inherently fickle as now it all has to be related back to existing measurements. So Metric, for all its precision, is as inherently unintuitive in its basis as any other system which sets the standard for measurement as however long the King's foot happens to be at the time, or what have you.

Here I agree with you completely, and I think this is a very interesting subject. Of course we now define the basis for the system according to some historical notion, but what if there's a better base that would make certain conversions even easier?

Also one could point out that the only reason why the Metric system is useful is because are maths have base 10. If we had used base 8 or 16, or why not 12, then we could have had the best of both worlds. Decimals that make sense and are easy to do arithmetics on, and that could still be easily fractioned. 10 is a really stupid number.

 

[Symphony D.]

That's an interesting point and one not without precedent. The main reason why it'll probably never happen is because it would be such a pain in the ass to convert--which is the same reason why Metric for all its supposed precision sticks to preexisting ideas, and simply defines them in new, ever more precise ways. The page also brings up some of the points I referenced on why 12 is better than 10, and some more to boot. The chief reason we use base 10 is because we have 10 fingers. If we'd had 12, we'd probably use base 12. I'm sure one day aliens will mock us for this and how it delayed our understanding of the universe for centuries or something.

On a different note entirely, I find great amusement in the fact this thread can be more intelligent than the sum of Off Topic.

On a separate different note entirely, who here still plays that game that kicks the crap out of Civilization, Alpha Centauri? I want to get a PBEM going or something among people I can predict manipulate know and trust secretly hate love rather than just trawling the SMAC forum.

 

[The Strategos]

On a separate different note entirely, who here still plays that game that kicks the crap out of Civilization, Alpha Centauri? I want to get a PBEM going or something among people I can predict manipulate know and trust secretly hate love rather than just trawling the SMAC forum.

I have it (the original, not the expansion) though I haven't played it in well over a year. I might be interested in playing it again, with the warning that I always liked to role play my leaders, and thus did stuff that if I was trying to meet a victory condition would have been pretty stupid. I also like strange limits on game play, such as, for example, play as Gaians but only allowed to build fungus terrain improvement or play as Hive where we cannot use entertainers and must nerve staple all drones.

 

[Symphony D.]

I will caveat my statement by saying I like to play in Alien Crossfire, but with the original 7 Factions. Most of the new Factions (see: Pirates, Cyborgs, Aliens) are amazingly broken.

 

[Niklas]

I have it but I haven't played it in ages. I really liked it though, so I sure wouldn't mind a PBEM game. I have both original and expansion, if I can just dig up the CDs (shouldn't be a problem).

 

[Lord_Iggy]

On a separate different note entirely, who here still plays that game that kicks the crap out of Civilization, Alpha Centauri? I want to get a PBEM going or something among people I can predict manipulate know and trust secretly hate love rather than just trawling the SMAC forum.

I've played it, love it, but don't have Alien Crossfire.

 

[Niklas]

I found the stuff, but I can't get them to run. I get a message "your CPU might not be supported" and when I tell it to run anyway it just exits.

 

[Symphony D.]

It doesn't recognize things beyond Pentium IIIs. Follow this.

 

[Luckymoose]

I have Alpha Centauri installed. Not to great at it but it is still there.

edit: not the expansion though.

 

[Niklas]

Yep, got it to work, thanks for the link.