Link

The replies are hilarious michael-laugh, so many blue checks saying “abandon big tech!” while they pay for Twitter from the richest fascist in the world.

  • Satanic_Mills [comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    Formed to be easy to use by centuries of laborers performing their work, beloved by all - verboten!

    That must be why customary measurements are consistent across all cultures, since they are defined by use- hang on, I’m getting a call from the foot:

    It varied in length from country to country, from city to city, and sometimes from trade to trade. Its length was usually between 250 mm and 335 mm and was generally, but not always, subdivided into 12 inches or 16 digits.

    Boy I’m glad we use natural and not arbitrarily defined measurements!

    • CrushKillDestroySwag [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
      0·
      1 year ago

      Criticizing the metric system is not the same as criticizing standardization. Plenty of placed standardized their measurements before the metric system came along and replaced the original lengths of measure (that were based on useful lengths to work in, as determined by artisans through thousands of years of trial and error) with new ones (that were based on universal constants that were selected by an aristocrat to look nice on paper).

      • ProfessorOwl_PhD [any]@hexbear.netEnglish
        1·
        1 year ago

        (that were based on useful lengths to work in, as determined by artisans through thousands of years of trial and error)

        Source. Also fuck you this is a stupid statement. Why in the goddamn fuck would a variable unit with multiple “standardisations” almost exclusively based on the whims of contemporary rulers have been determined by artisans, and some specific length that was useful to them? If they’re so specifically useful lengths and divisions to work with why are they variably divided into 9, 12, or 16 parts depending on where you are in the world and history, and why does the specifically useful length vary across standardisations? If the standardised size is so valuable to artists then why did it change twice in 200 years because different English kings wanted credit for it? You think their artisan friends were begging them to make the foot a little shorter?

        that were based on universal constants that were selected by an aristocrat to look nice on paper

        Did you do any thinking at all before writing this? Can you not come up with a single possible reason why it might be advantageous to base measurements off an immutable aspects of the universe instead of "dave reckon’s this is a good length*? Is it really that hard to connect a desire for standardisation to something that actually is the same every time?