The replies are hilarious 
, so many blue checks saying "abandon big tech!" while they pay for Twitter from the richest fascist in the world.
this post was submitted on 15 Dec 2023
188 points (100.0% liked)
the_dunk_tank
16018 readers
1 users here now
It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to !shitreactionariessay@lemmygrad.ml
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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?
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?
Ah, not quite - I'm operating on the assumption that the people working for thousands of years arbitrarily pulled them from thin air. Because, you know... That's literally how all definitions of measurement work. Try the cubit, somewhere between a foot and a half and 4 feet - what was so useful to people about those distances? At best ones like the foot and the chi came from using your forearm as a standard length, but once they're standardised the choice of whose forearm to use is completely arbitrary. Russian units were based on different ways of stretching your body parts - stuff like a hand span or arm span. Choosing what to use as a measurement is completely arbitrary, which then is standardised over time by people using the same thing as a measurement and it eventually getting defined as a single distance. The kings arbitrary choices were just building on the arbitrary choices of the past. There wasn't anything less arbitrary about the choice because lots of people used it.
Yes, they discovered the law as they understood it was mistaken, and so found more accurate ways to define it, which is why we're now using a fraction of a light second. If we find more precise definitions in future we'll define it by them.
Lastly, they already did that. The imperial and us customary measurement systems are both defined by metric distances now, specifically because metric distances, equally arbitrarily chosen as they are, shouldn't change. And if they do, we'll find something that doesn't.