venox wrote:Well you know there also is something in between centimetres and metres you know, decimetres. I dont think a tiny dot infront of the number will make such a big difference.
Well I never really hear Europeans talking about height in decimeters although I know the marcation exists.
Thats the thing with the metric system: it doesnt matter how you say it, its extremely easy to convert. You can tell me your height 5 different ways and each time I would immediately know how tall you are.
Say youre 60 thats about 1.90m You could have said 190 centimeters, 19 decimeters, 1.9 meters, 1900 milimeters, 0.0019 kilometers etc. its all the same to me. Now try that with the imperial system and realise why no one in their right mind would want to work with it unless they grew up with it and never knew better.
evilcheadar wrote:As someone very familiar with both I still think imperial feet are best for human height measurement. Units of meters and their fractions are to big where centimeters feel overly precise. A foot with 12 one inch demotions seems just right for measuring humans.
evilcheadar wrote:As someone very familiar with both I still think imperial feet are best for human height measurement. Units of meters and their fractions are to big where centimeters feel overly precise. A foot with 12 one inch demotions seems just right for measuring humans.
why are centimeters overly precise exactly?
I knew someone would ask. Poor wording. From 1.6m to 2m there is 40 different cm heights someone could be. In inperial from 52 to 66 there is just 16 different inch heights. While with metric you can express height more accurately (unless you really want to go into half and quarter inches which most dont) you can get a feeling for how tall someone is faster with the 16 as opposed to 40 heights in between 52 and 66. Of course one can just say theyre absolutely fine with differentiating more divisions and thats just dandy.
A post not made is a post given away
A slushie a day keeps the refill thread at bay
Jackson Pollock was the best poster to ever to post on these forums
jerom wrote:why are centimeters overly precise exactly?
I knew someone would ask. Poor wording. From 1.6m to 2m there is 40 different cm heights someone could be. In inperial from 52 to 66 there is just 16 different inch heights. While with metric you can express height more accurately (unless you really want to go into half and quarter inches which most dont) you can get a feeling for how tall someone is faster with the 16 as opposed to 40 heights in between 52 and 66. Of course one can just say theyre absolutely fine with differentiating more divisions and thats just dandy.
evilcheadar wrote:I knew someone would ask. Poor wording. From 1.6m to 2m there is 40 different cm heights someone could be. In inperial from 52 to 66 there is just 16 different inch heights. While with metric you can express height more accurately (unless you really want to go into half and quarter inches which most dont) you can get a feeling for how tall someone is faster with the 16 as opposed to 40 heights in between 52 and 66. Of course one can just say theyre absolutely fine with differentiating more divisions and thats just dandy.
that is just what you are used to really.
Yes but objectively there is less of the commonly used divisions in imperial than metric in that range of heights (or all heights )
A post not made is a post given away
A slushie a day keeps the refill thread at bay
Jackson Pollock was the best poster to ever to post on these forums
You can look how many 5 centimetres there are if 40 steps are too much for you. Just like not many people use fractions of inches you can still round up or down to 1.85 metres or 1.80 metres.
Don't let the things you can't change dictate your life.
cometk wrote:metric is pretty shitty for measuring the height of humans.
like if someone''s 5'' 2" or 5'' 6", i can immediately imagine the difference. but 1.63m and 1.65m? meters are too big, centimeters are too small, but inches are the perfect human-measuring unit
Lol wut, centimeters are small enough to be accurate. 2 cm is about an inch. And I can immediately imagine the difference between 1.6m and 1.7m... You just grew used to it. Problem is no one fucking uses and no one fucking cares about it outside U.S. - and this whole 12 inches in a foot, 3 feet in a yard and 1760 yard in a mile sounds dumb and inconvenient.
noissance wrote:Why does no one play KoTH!!!! (modified sup)
Because the timer doesn''t reset and you can even delete the fort/hill. Otherwise KoTH has a lot of potential for FFAs, which currently are unplayable thanks to the treaty scrubs :-S Anyway, the devs were fucking incompetent/lazy.
noissance wrote:Why does no one play KoTH!!!! (modified sup)
Because the timer doesnt reset and you can even delete the fort/hill. Otherwise KoTH has a lot of potential for FFAs, which currently are unplayable thanks to the treaty scrubs :-S Anyway, the devs were fucking incompetent/lazy.
Yea right us treaty players did nothing wrong with king of the hill.
A post not made is a post given away
A slushie a day keeps the refill thread at bay
Jackson Pollock was the best poster to ever to post on these forums
ivan wrote:Because the timer doesnt reset and you can even delete the fort/hill. Otherwise KoTH has a lot of potential for FFAs, which currently are unplayable thanks to the treaty scrubs :-S Anyway, the devs were fucking incompetent/lazy.
Yea right us treaty players did nothing wrong with king of the hill.
I mean FFAs are shit because most of the time people play as if it was a treaty 60 game or something. Most people even pick treaty decks. It brings me so much pleasure when I rush the shit out of them and force them to leave early for turning an otherwise beautiful game into a treaty-esque abomination.
Debate is about apples or oranges - wht u prefer? Its just 2 diffent things. Personally i prefer rush - cos i often play sioux (distaster in treaty) - and i dont want games to go on and on forever. Treaty is just booring
Hippocrits are the worst of animals. I love elifants.
iwillspankyou wrote:Debate is about apples or oranges - wht u prefer? Its just 2 diffent things. Personally i prefer rush - cos i often play sioux (distaster in treaty) - and i dont want games to go on and on forever. Treaty is just booring
interesting how your last sentence really doesnt match the rest of your post.
I edit my statment: personally i find treaty booring. And i never watch streams with treaty. Who does anyway. 3-3 treaty - i just cant get the overview.
Hippocrits are the worst of animals. I love elifants.
iwillspankyou wrote:I edit my statment: personally i find treaty booring. And i never watch streams with treaty. Who does anyway. 3-3 treaty - i just cant get the overview.
I actually enjoy watching treaty streams. Its very relaxing to watch.
iwillspankyou wrote:I edit my statment: personally i find treaty booring. And i never watch streams with treaty. Who does anyway. 3-3 treaty - i just cant get the overview.
I actually enjoy watching treaty streams. Its very relaxing to watch.
I enjoy watching the fighting. The first 40 minut not so much.
