This feels like an April fools joke.
Ridiculous concept. If you can't do the math, get an app or ask an adult.
this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)
Damn, that's interesting!
4688 readers
1 users here now
- No clickbait
- No Racism and Hate speech
- No Imgur Gallery Links
- No Infographics
- Moderator Discretion
- Repost Guidelines
- No videos over 15 minutes long
- No "Photoshopped" posts
- Image w/ text posts must be sourced in comments
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Yeah but don't make the units "metric hours/minutes/seconds" for crying out loud. Make another unit of measurement.
US miles, or Scottish, or Swedish, or what? Reusing a word for a different meaning is never the solution.
Maybe I'm not understanding this right. A quick google search shows that there is 86 400 seconds in a day. With metric time, an hour is 10 000 seconds. That means that a day would be 8.6 hours, but on this clock it's 10? How does that work?
One metric second != one (conventional) second
So it's not using the SI second? That's a bit weird
I guess it could make sense. Reading a bit more and it looks like the second is defined as a fraction (1/86400) of a day. Using 1/100000 wouldn't be tgat crazy. But more than just fucking up all our softwares and time-measuring tools, that would also completely change a lot of physics/chemistry formulas (or constants in these formulas ti be more precise). Interesting thought experiment, but i feel that particularly changing the definition of a second would affect soooo mucchhh.
This is really neat, but of course people on Lemmy are already talking about using it practically as a replacement for standard clocks...
I swear, I've run out of facepalm on the topic of metric vs. ________.
The metric system brain-worms run deep.
Having a second that is not in line with the definition of the second, which if the most metric thing, is an abomination.
It's close enough that counting Mississippis is still roughly accurate.
(for non-US people, we sometimes estimate seconds by counting 1 Mississippi, 2 Mississippi, 3 Mississippi... just because it's a long word that takes about the right amount of time to say)
We do it with crocodiles but maths checks out.
Your departure form US defaultism is celebrated here, dear person.
I didn't want anyone to think I'm actually from that shithole state, Mississippi.
Now I finally know how it feels to be a real American
For once I hate metric (time)
The advantage of 12 and 60 is that they're extremely easy to divide into smaller sections. 12 can be divided into halves, thirds, and fourths easily. 60 can be divided into halves, thirds, fourths, and fifths. So ya, 10 isn't a great unit for time.
I don't understand how its any easier than using 100 and dividing...
1/2 an hour is 30 min 1/2 an hour if metric used 100 is 50 min
1/4 an hour is 15 min 1/4 an hour metric is 25 min
Any lower than that and they both get tricky..
1/8 an hour is 7.5 min 1/8 an hour metric is 12.5 min
Getting used to metric time would be an impossible thing to implement worldwide I reckon, but I struggle to understand how its any less simple than the 60 min hour we have and the 24 hour day...
And 1/3 of 100 is 33.3333333333333. There are strong arguments for a base 12 number system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duodecimal), and some folks have already put together a base 12 metric system for it. 10 is really quite arbitrary if you think about it. I mean we only use it because humans have 10 fingers, and it's only divisible by 5 and 2.
That said, the best argument for sticking with base 10 metric is that it's well established. And base 10 time would make things more consistent, even if it has some trade offs.
I will always up vote base12 superiority posts
Ancient central Americans used a base 12 number system and counted on their fingers using finger segments (3 per finger, 4 fingers, 12 segments). Makes fractions way more intuitive
My vote is power-of-two based. Everything should be binary. It is divided up so much easier and counting is better.
The clock should go from 0.0 to 1.0. Dinner time would be around 0.7083 o-clock.
Dinner time would be around 0.7083 o-clock.
This is fairly similar to .beat time; in that system you would write it as @708. I guess you could make it @708.3 to be more specific.
I loved the idea behind Swatch's .beats. A "beat" was slightly short of 1.5 minutes, so totally usable in everyday life. If you need more precision, decimals - as @[email protected] suggested - are allowed.
However, one big issue of it is that it is based on Biel, Switzerland local time and the same for everyone around the world. Might not be that big of a problem for Europeans, but while e.g. @000 is midnight in Biel, it's early morning in Australia, and afternoon/evening in the US.
And the second, bigger issue becomes obvious when you start looking at the days. E.g. people in the US would start work @708 on a Tuesday and finish @042 on Wednesday. Good luck scheduling your meetings like this.
Neat but holy good fucking god the amount of programming it would take if it was ever decided to change this going forward, not to mention how historical times would be referenced. Datetime programming is already such a nightmare.
I sit in a cubicle and I update bank software for the ~~2000~~ metric switch.
Lol. Seriously though, for something like this these days, it will be interesting to see what happens given we will have to face the year 2038 problem. This kind of thing was still doable for the 2000 switch because of the relatively small number of devices/softwares, but because of the number of devices and softwares now, let alone in 2038, I really have no idea how it's going to be managed.
Although it is only software/devices that are 32-bit
Both 12 and 60 are superior highly composite numbers^[1] which makes mental math easy. 60 in particular is a very nice number because it has 12 divisors and is the smallest number divisible by all the numbers 1 through 6.
We need 6 fingers and switch to base12 math.
Who over the age of 6 counts on their fingers
Nah. Just start counting on your fingers. 123 on the index, 456 on the middle, 789 on the ring, and the rest on your pinkie. Its based on the segments of each finger, and it's how Mayans used to count.
I mean, you already have 12 phalanges on one hand (3 each, from 4 fingers) and you can use your thumb as an indicator.
And the other hand to count up to 5 dozens, aka 60
What is left to say. The Babylonians made a wise choice.
Were it only the French metric people forcibly converted everyone to base 12 or something
Yes, this is great, always was.
And dont spoil it with timezones.
Nature isn't base 10. Why must we try to make it so?
The day being divided into 24 hours is just as arbitrary as 10 though is it not?
Well, yes and no.
In geometry, 15, 30, 45, 60, 90, 120, and 180 degrees are all important, commonly occurring angles. They can be represented as 1/24, 1/12, 1/8, 1/6, 1/4, 1/3, and 1/2 of a circle. Trying to represent these angles on a 10-degree circle, most would have infinitely repeating decimals, which would make math involving them extraordinarily ugly and complicated. You can't represent the angles of an equilateral triangle without repeating decimals. (1/3 of a circle, or 3.333 "degrees") You can't even represent the angles of a square without a fractional part. (1/4 of a circle, or 2.5 "degrees")
Dividing the circle into 360 degrees gives us numbers that are simpler and cleaner to use in base-10 mathematics. The 360-degree circle is a layer of abstraction for eliminating repeating decimals when referring to these common angles. Decimal is such a pain in the ass in geometry that stacking a sexagesimal layer between the unit circle and the number system was the most feasible way to do it.
A base-12 number system would not need such an abstraction. On a 12-degree circle, these common angles would be 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, and 6 degrees. A 24-degree circle (12-degree half-circle) would allow us to represent each of these with no radix point (the "decimal point" in a non-decimal number system)
Basically, if we had evolved with 6 fingers on each hand instead of 5, mathematics would be far more elegant. We would have needed to memorize a completely different multiplication table, where 34 = "10" instead of 12, 62 ="10" instead of 12, and 234*6 = "100" instead of 144. The duodecimal expansions of π, e, √2, and other irrational constants would be different, but the concepts would be consistent.
An alien who grew up doing base-12 math would look at our base-10 system like we would look at the poor bastards who used a base-7 number system.
What does it have to do with nature though?
Why settle for 24 when you can have a hundred fractions?
I Used to joke about this with my Canadian coworkers. Didn’t know it was an actual thing?
view more: next ›