> Interesting. I didn't know that. Do you do the conversion in your head, like 2 blocks = 160*2 meters, when someone use blocks in a conversation ? Just curious.
I do it explicitly some times, but mainly I do 2 blocks -> 5 minutes of walking.
It's also useful to think in blocks because addresses here (and in many places in the US) go up/down by 100 for each block; so if I'm going from 12XX to 7XX (colloquially "The 1200 block to the 700 block") that's 5 blocks.
> also ... LOOK everyone I found an American who uses metric system as first choice in their post!!!
Meters are better than feet in every way even if you use miles for long distances. There are 5280 feet in a mile, but 1600 meters in a mile[1]. One of these numbers is far easier to deal with.
As an aside, I wonder about using centimeters for height; In the US, if you look at a bell-curve for "self reported height of men" you see a drop off just below 6' (~183cm) and a huge spike at 6', distorting the curve[2]. Do you see similar distortions at 180 or 175cm in countries where the metric system is used? Given that far more men are "almost" 180cm or 175cm (in the US, 175 is average) are there more men "rounding up" on their heights in such places?
Athletes, in particular, are incentivized to round-up, as scouts won't even look at you if you are "too short" and scouts like to use even numbers for cutoffs.
1: Technically 1609, but that makes an eighth of a mile estimate off by only about a meter, and the "mile run" event in US high-school track is actually 1600 meters.
2: The center of the bell-curve is also 2-3cm taller than measured heights of men in the US.
>Meters are better than feet in every way even if you use miles for long distances. There are 5280 feet in a mile, but 1600 meters in a mile[1]. One of these numbers is far easier to deal with.
why have you forsaken the furlong, the chain, and the rod?
1. To use all 3 would require remembering more conversion ratios
2. More people (even in the US) are familiar with meters than those units. I was not familiar with the Rod at all, which is the closest to meter in utility for discussing block lengths.
I do it explicitly some times, but mainly I do 2 blocks -> 5 minutes of walking.
It's also useful to think in blocks because addresses here (and in many places in the US) go up/down by 100 for each block; so if I'm going from 12XX to 7XX (colloquially "The 1200 block to the 700 block") that's 5 blocks.
> also ... LOOK everyone I found an American who uses metric system as first choice in their post!!!
Meters are better than feet in every way even if you use miles for long distances. There are 5280 feet in a mile, but 1600 meters in a mile[1]. One of these numbers is far easier to deal with.
As an aside, I wonder about using centimeters for height; In the US, if you look at a bell-curve for "self reported height of men" you see a drop off just below 6' (~183cm) and a huge spike at 6', distorting the curve[2]. Do you see similar distortions at 180 or 175cm in countries where the metric system is used? Given that far more men are "almost" 180cm or 175cm (in the US, 175 is average) are there more men "rounding up" on their heights in such places?
Athletes, in particular, are incentivized to round-up, as scouts won't even look at you if you are "too short" and scouts like to use even numbers for cutoffs.
1: Technically 1609, but that makes an eighth of a mile estimate off by only about a meter, and the "mile run" event in US high-school track is actually 1600 meters.
2: The center of the bell-curve is also 2-3cm taller than measured heights of men in the US.