I’m generally annoyed pretty much 99.9 ½ % of the time. 
6 Likes
Here’s a tidbit for you, the ancient Babylonians used a base 64 number system. Apparently it was much better for astronomical calculations.
It would come in handy for measuring Sufferlandrian coefficients of suffering.
4 Likes
I think it was base 60, largely due to the high number of divisors of 60. It’s ultimately why we measure time and angles with a base of 60.
When you learn of how much Maths the very oldest civilisations knew, you realise that they were just like us but without the benefit of the accumulated collective knowledge that we have. The Babylonians, for example, had identified and were able to solve quadratic equations waaaaaay before “modern” algebra arose.
4 Likes
It’s 99 and 44/100% pure annoyance! (To recall the ancient Ivory Soap marketing slogan)
3 Likes
Aww, i remember your New Bike Day w the black knight. Good times.
2 Likes
Oh man, let’s not get started on imperial measures…thanks to the military, this American still prefers metric as well. Hate having to constantly translate in my head.
2 Likes
TMI, Sir. TMI.
3 Likes
You never disappoint, Cap’n Sir!
2 Likes
The further problem we have in the UK is that imperial measurements have a cult following and therefore refuse to go away. This leads to us operating with a mish-mash of the two systems in day-to-day life (e.g. we order steaks in ounces at a restaurant but buy them in grammes at the supermarket). Ridiculous.
Our media’s preferred units of measurement are the double-decker bus, the football (soccer) pitch and the Olympic swimming pool (none of which has standard dimensions). Still, makes about as much sense as imperial measures.
2 Likes
I had always considered being British and capable of seamlessly converting between Imperial and Metric testament to our education system.
Amazing to think that it’s possible to learn more than one thing at a time!
US Customary units throw a spanner in the works but it’s another string to the bow.
1 Like
I’m sorry, and what unit of measure is that?
1 Like
The measure of capability
3 Likes
how long is that string?
2 Likes
Classically, 6’6”, or 1.98m
3 Likes
and the tensile strength? And would you measure that in Pascals, Megapascals or Pounds-force per square inch or Kilo-pounds per square inch?
2 Likes
Tensile strength you’ve got me on (although that would be measured in Pascals, and not usually of interest for ductile materials), but a draw force of 470 Newtons (105 pounds-force, lbf).
I hope this helps; it’s been an enjoyable, educational, albeit short, journey 
2 Likes
Is it supposed to? Doesn’t ALL information make us faster? I know that ever since I got a smart trainer, power meter, speed sensor, cadence sensor, heart rate monitor and bike computer I’m waaaaaay faster than before. One day I’ll just go out and ride my bike for fun! (who am I kidding, I’m not gonna do that 
)
4 Likes
When considering weight, one should round down to the nearest number evenly divisible by 5, unless you are referring to the weight of your significant other.
In that case, the only correct reply is to ditch the number system entirely and exclaim “you look great! Did you lose weight?”
3 Likes