The metre was re-defined[0] in 1791 as one ten-millionth of the quarter-meridian, or ninety degrees of arc, through Paris.
It then follows straightforwardly that 1° ≡ 1/90 × 10^7 m = 111 111.111... m.
It also follows straightforwardly that the circumference of Earth is approximately forty million metres, or 40 000 km.
[0]: Edit: the initial definition of the metre was the length of a seconds pendulum, i.e. the length of a pendulum with a period of two seconds.
Given the formula T ≈ 2π√(L/g), letting T = 2 and L = 1, we have 1 = π√(1/g), and 1 = π²/g.
This is also why g is so close to the value of π²—because the former is expressed in units that are defined that way. It's also not a coincidence that 1 cm³ of water is 1 g—for a long time, that was the definition of the gram.
Given that the second is an older unit [0] than the redefinition of the metre, and defined based on "nice" subdivisions of the day, it would seem that there's still a bit of a coincidence there.
Since the metre was previously defined by the seconds pendulum, it was entirely defined by the definition of a second and the value of g. From the equations, 1 m = 1 s² × g / π².
While this makes g ≈ π² straightforward, it seems coincidental that the Earth's circumference was close enough to 40 000 km that the redefinition of the metre was a nice power or 10 without too much change to the metre.
Was the meter based on the length of the pendulum similar to the length of the meter today? This doesn't necessarily say they were similar:
> In 1675, Tito Livio Burattini suggested the term metre for a unit of length based on a pendulum length, but then it was discovered that the length of a seconds pendulum varies from place to place.
The difference in gravity around the Earth is small enough that the pendulums would be within a couple percent. (Wikipedia claims a measured difference of 0.3% from the time.)
Assuming the second was also quite accurate, the seconds pendulum wouldn't be too far from its current definition given that g ≈ π² to within ~1 % in modern units.
Note that the meter is also basically 3 Paris feet, which comes out to about 0.97m (compared to 3 English feet, which is only around 0.91m). They weren't working in a vacuum to derive the most principled or cosmically beautiful unit length, just trying to find a way to define the unit they already used that wasn't "the length of this stick we have over here".
Yeah, because measuring the mean equatorial and longitudinal circumference of the Earth on a line passing through Paris is a pain in the ass.
The meter was also standardized at a weird golden period for units -- we had global trade and travel (and so it was getting inconvenient to have different standard unit length sticks in different countries, let alone cities), we had enough science to have the notion of basing it on physical constants instead of random sticks, but we also weren't yet in a world where precision mattered all that much. You could change the length of your units by 3% and it wouldn't really matter as much it would today, where every bolt and manufactured part would instantly become a nightmare.
It's kind of a shame, because now we could pick so much cooler definitions for our units, because our science is so much better. Take restandardizing the foot as 1 ns * c -- so much more elegant than the mean circumference of the Earth, or an ugly number of wavelengths of a caesium atom. But changing the foot by 1.5% -- half as much as the difference between the meter and 3 Paris feet -- would be devastating today in a way that it wasn't in 1800. Hell, it'd probably be easier to change the definition of a second than the definition of a foot.
I’m surprised that there isn’t GPS coordinate system which is just kilometers. Instead of 360 degrees uses 40,000 km. The real calculation would use the real distances but the approximation is close enough. This means don’t have to do any conversion to distances, at least for metric folks.
One problem with degrees is that hard to convert to useful distances. This tricks help a lot, but it would be better to have no conversion.
In a previous life I had to implement conversions between ECEF and WGS84. If you do it, make sure to use at least 64-bit floats, the Earth is so big that 32-bit arithmetic will introduce errors on the order of meters.
You’ve brought memories of dealing with NAD83 (for local maps) and WGS84 (for everything else) crashing back. The error between those is tiny at the distances I was dealing with, but it was enough that it bothered me.
“I’ll just automate this mapping task in Python, how bad could it be?”
The main difficulty is that for ease of calculation you'd like a cartesian grid, which maps poorly to the spheroid shape of the earth. One solution is UTM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Transverse_Mercator_... which divides the earth into 60 zones, and then inside each zone you have a cartesian grid with meters as the unit. So a UTM coordinate consists of the zone designator, and then distances in meters from the equator and the zone's central meridian.
The perfect sphere approximation of Earth is not at all close enough for GIS applications. Geoid data (the actual ellipsoid-ish shape with height variance) is an important factor in accurate GIS software.
There is a 'metric' coordinate system, it's called EPSG:3857 and uses meters as its units. Although it is not valid close to the poles and can give error of up to 0.6% so it's not useful for when you need high accuracy or to cover the entire globe.
Most places in world also have local coordinate systems that reproject smaller geographic areas to cartesian coordinates with meter units for making easier to work in those areas.
Do you have an example in mind? A problem that you may encounter, how do you calculate now, and how could you calculate with a GPS system that is just kilometers?
Couple reasons 1) why use seconds when you can just measure a segment of a known distance? 2) pendulums swing faster or slower depending on altitude, 3) Problems with accurate measurement of seconds, swing time etc.
I guess for (1) I would imagine it was easier for an independent group of scientists to accurately measure a pendulum, than to travel all the way to the north pole in a straight line through Paris.
But I guess they were using the stars or something so maybe it's not as hard as I'd imagine. Also (2) and (3) are great points.
Exact geographic measurements where the high technology of 18th century. Each society uses the highest precision measurements available to them. Also, plate tectonics were scifi fantasy until 1950's.
For those of you marvelling at Romans having a five foot (1.5 m) stride, a Roman pace was two steps, counted from the left foot down to left foot down again.
In my experience many people define pace the same way today. We were taught in Boy Scouts how to pace off a distance measuring 5 feet per pace, or every other footfall.
I have seen this argument before, but I'm not sure that I buy it. Even if you count every footfall, you are not magically going to somehow use, say, only your left foot. At the end of a km, you will have 600 double paces or 1199, 1200 or 1201 single paces. Well within the margin of error.
My hypothesis is this: Actually try to count every foot when you’re out. If you count only every second footfall, you can mentally go "a-one-a-two-a-three" and so on, but counting every foot, there are just too many of them. At least I get brain overload from it.
Nope. Boy scouts, not cub scouts, so a lot of us were closer to adult stride than kid. If you measure a typical adult pace (same foot to same foot) it's probably just under 5 feet unless they're deliberately pacing to measure something. You get a feel for what it takes for your own pace to hit 5 feet so you can repeat it.
I used to teach orienteering and scout skills when I was a teenager. One of the first things we did was measure how long each kid's natural pace was so they could know how to pace out a distance. If the course said 600ft and the kid knows their pace was 3 feet then they would take 200 paces or 400 steps. Typically, unless you were a runt like me it almost always came out to 5 feet. Just kind of the way people work. 2.5 feet a step. Roughly 5 feet or 1.5 meters per pace.
It always got complicated with obstacles though. Especially since most of them didn't know how to do trigonometry yet. We usually just had them estimate which they got pretty good at after a few hours of counting paces.
Most other 'mile's are derivatives of the Roman mile which developed somewhat independently of the English units (foot, yard, inch, barleycorn, etc), ergo the weird conversion factors. The original Roman mile was 5000 Roman feet.
In fact, 1 nmi ≡ 1.852 km exactly.
Also from the original definition of the metre: 1/60 × 1/90 × 10^7 = 1851.85185185... m.
Inter-convertability was a defining trait of SI (or more precisely, its predecessors, MKS and CGS) from the very outset, which is why we have 1 m ≡ 1 s ≡ 1 kg ≡ 1 N ≡ 1 Pa ≡ 1 J ≡ 1 A ≡ 1 C ≡ 1 V ≡ 1 Ω ≡ 1 F ≡ 1 W ≡ 1 Wb ≡ 1 T ≡ 1 H ≡ 1 Hz (I use '≡' loosely here to suggest conversion factors, rather than its usual meaning of equivalence).
The only outliers in the SI are the kelvin, the mole, and the candela (and derived units from these). The former two are dealt with straightforwardly with the Boltzmann and Avogadro constants. I have issues with the presence of the candela in the SI.
> Most other 'mile's are derivatives of the Roman mile which developed somewhat independently of the English units (foot, yard, inch, barleycorn, etc), ergo the weird conversion factors. The original Roman mile was 5000 Roman feet.
Pre-metric Europe was full of units with weird conversion factors, based on a shared heritage (mixture of Roman and Germanic), but with lots of divergent evolution subsequently. England didn't really stand out; France, Spain, Italy, Germany, etc, were really no different.
Then the Continent did away with most of that complexity by adopting metric, and for whatever reason the English dragged their feet on doing that, and their American offshoots even more so. But the fact that people have forgotten that the French/Germans/etc used to have feet/inches/miles/pounds/etc too, [0] albeit with somewhat different definitions, makes people think English units were somehow unique. They never were. The uniqueness is in the slowness in replacing them with metric, not the units themselves.
[0] They still have some of these units for certain purposes. In France and Germany, the pound is still used, albeit redefined to be exactly 500 g. Nautical miles are used in maritime and aviation applications; American influence (and to a lesser degree British) led to the adoption of the Anglo-American foot as the unit of altitude in aviation – the foot French pilots use to measure altitudes is the English foot not the old French foot; etc
> American influence (and to a lesser degree British) led to the adoption of the Anglo-American foot as the unit of altitude in aviation
There are a few notes I have regarding this. The Airbus consortium initially set up the Airbus A300 cockpit entirely in SI units, but they realised this wouldn't sell well in the US, and they switched to feet and flight levels.
Airfield weather data, including pressure and temperature readings in everywhere but the US are given in hectopascals and degrees Celsius.
Many post-Warsaw Pact countries (Russia, China, Uzbekistan, Belarus, Ukraine until recently) used to have a completely metric unit setup for their air traffic controls. Both Boeing and Airbus cockpits have settings to output altimeter readings in metres.
> Then the Continent did away with most of that complexity by adopting metric, and for whatever reason the English dragged their feet on doing that, and their American offshoots even more so.
If there's one export of the US I despise more than anything else, it is making legacy non-SI units relevant again because of its outsize influence in traditional and social media.
I live in a country that metricated half a century ago, but I have Gen Z friends who measure their heights in feet and inches, and their gym weights in pounds. What the absolute hell.
The SI units are the pinnacle of standardisation and the culmination of a three-hundred-year long effort to make life easier for everyone. I have no idea why the richest country in the world can't metricate properly.
Get rid of legacy units, and we save billions in not printing the (XX fl. oz), (XX lbs), or (XX oz) on food packaging alone.
It is ironic that a country that did away with colonialism, a whole lot of tea, and embraced the French and their revolution, never embraced the French units, but stuck with the English units.
As an American I will say this, almost nobody genuinely thinks that our measurement system is superior. I suspect the majority of us know it’s a janky system but it’s so difficult to change.
That being said, I switched over to Kilometers on my iPhone because of Pokémon Go. I’ve actually gotten to the point where I think of walking distance in metric more readily than in fractions of a mile, so metrification is making progress in unexpected and exciting ways!
It’s not ironic, it’s economic. People had other things to worry about during the Revolutionary War, and then afterwards there was an industrial revolution. (The tax on tea might have been the straw that broke the camel’s back, but the protectionist taxes on goods manufactured in the colonies was the real killer.) Once that was in full swing changing the units was impossible.
Every machine in every machine shop was geared towards manufacturing dimensions and tolerances specified in inches, tenths, and hundredths. Changing to metric would have required rebuilding or replacing all of them. England had the same problem. They had the most manufacturing capability in the world, and they weren’t about to spend all that money replacing all of that machinery.
Worse, the SI system isn’t really easier. The SI units were designed to make unit conversions easier, but in practice nobody actually converts units. In the US Customary system (as in the English Imperial system before it), every common activity has it’s own units.
Houses and furniture are measured in feet and inches, and you never ever convert those to miles. Why bother? Miles aren’t useful for measuring cupboards or rocking chairs.
Cooking uses teaspoons, tablespoons and cups, but you never need to convert between spoons and cups let alone cups and gallons or barrels or hogsheads. It is handy to remember that a tablespoon is three teaspoons though, because that can save you some time at the holidays when you have to scale your recipes up to feed all of your relatives.
The SI system is not really any different in practice.
> People had other things to worry about during the Revolutionary War
Well, the metric system was devised in France mostly during the Revolution, with the size of Earth surveyed while at war with most of Europe in order to get a good basis for the length of the meter.
> Cooking uses teaspoons, tablespoons and cups
Or millilitres and grams, which are basically equivalent for liquids, so you only need a kitchen scale to do most cooking as long as it's not an American recipe, and it's extremely easy to scale recipes.
> People had other things to worry about during the Revolutionary War
Actually there are plenty of examples of countries adopting metric after a revolution or gaining independence, so perhaps the US didn’t adopt metric in spite of the revolution rather than because of it.
Industrial revolution had nothing to do with it, given that the inch USA uses today is an inch created by a pissed off engineer (gauge block Inventor Carl Johansson) in European company making gauge blocks, who defined an inch to be 25.4 mm @ 20 degrees Celsius in 1912 - created by taking a reasonable metric approximation in between British and American inches.
The popularity of Johansson's blocks is Brits changed their definition of inch in 1930 and USA followed in 1933. Most countries that still used inches started to use "industrial inch" of 25.4mm in 1930s, the rest went metric.
> and then afterwards there was an industrial revolution.
> Every machine in every machine shop was geared towards manufacturing dimensions and tolerances specified in inches, tenths, and hundredths. Changing to metric would have required rebuilding or replacing all of them.
I don't think this argument makes anywhere near as much sense as you think it does: the part of the US which lags the most in metrication isn't industry, it is in everyday life, K-12 education, and consumer products/services; the US manufacturing industry is significantly ahead of US consumers in the adoption of metric. Entire industries in the US have adopted metric (most notably the US automotive design&manufacturing industry has switched to mostly metric). If the real issue were about industry, you'd expect industry to have the biggest lag, not to be ahead of consumers.
I think the real reason is actually cultural. Almost every country which successfully metricated, did so with some degree of government coercion – "you are going to start using metric now, and we aren't giving you a choice about it". The US cultural emphasis on individual freedom led it to refuse to go down that path, insisting that metrication be voluntary only – which is a large part of why, decades later, so little progress has been made. Similarly, the UK's insistence on retaining miles for road distances is due to cultural and political reasons, not any practical concern – Australia successfully converted all its road distance and speed limit signs to kilometres, despite having much longer roads than the UK does
Also, for all that US insistence on "freedom", it actually engages in anti-metric governmental coercion – consider the Fair Packaging and Labelling Act (FPLA), a federal law which makes metric-only packaging illegal for many categories of consumer goods.
> The SI units were designed to make unit conversions easier, but in practice nobody actually converts units
I can remember doing lots of unit conversions in science and maths classes in high school. If I'd gone on to study physical science or engineering at university, I'm sure I would have done plenty more. From an educational viewpoint, I think it is easier to teach students how to do science with SI units if they have already been taught basic metric units at the primary/elementary level, and are used to using them in everyday life. Whereas, students in the US start out with less familiarity with basic metric units, which makes learning to use SI units in science class more work for them
And every time I visit the US I find myself constantly trying to remember stuff like "what is an ounce, again?" "what's 60 degrees Fahrenheit in Celsius?". If the US finally finished adopting the metric system, it would eliminate the need for many unit conversions which are now required by international visitors, immigrants/emigrants to/from the US, journalists, businesses engaged in product localisation, etc
> Cooking uses teaspoons, tablespoons and cups, but you never need to convert between spoons and cups
Some countries (Australia I know is one, there are probably others) have defined metric cups, teaspoons and tablespoons. So this isn't really the argument against the metric system that you think it is
Base ten is an unfortunate numeric choice and responsible for much of the hesitation to switch to metric. Maybe someday when we have millions of O'Neill Cylinder colonies, one of them will adopt base twelve instead, at which point the main reason against metric would go away.
> Base ten is an unfortunate numeric choice and responsible for much of the hesitation to switch to metric. Maybe someday when we have millions of O'Neill Cylinder colonies, one of them will adopt base twelve instead, at which point the main reason against metric would go away.
I've heard this argument many times before, but I don't think it makes much sense. The US customary / British imperial measurements are not consistently based on base 12. Yes, there are 12 inches to a foot; but there are 16 (not 12) ounces in a pound, and 128 (not 12 or 144) US fluid ounces in a US gallon (versus 160 UK fluid ounces in a UK gallon). Fahrenheit has 180 degrees between the freezing and boiling points of water, with water freezing at 32 degrees – none of which has much to do with base 12 either. There is no widely used unit corresponding to 12 feet or a twelfth of a mile. If you really want a system of units based on base 12, the US customary / British imperial system ain't what you are looking for.
Also, it ignores the fact that you can metricate while keeping a foot of 12 inches, if you define a new "metric foot" composed of 12 "metric inches". This has been done before – as I mentioned in an earlier comment, many European countries kept the pound when metricating, by defining a new "metric pound" of 500 g. Given the current standard US-UK inch is exactly 25.4 mm, one option would be to have a metric inch of 25 mm (= 2.5 cm), twelve of which would give a metric foot of 300 mm (= 30 cm, versus 30.48 cm exactly for the standard US-UK foot). Sure, having two different foots and inches (old and new) coexisting for a while might cause some confusion; but if the confusion isn't worth it, maybe base 12 isn't really worth it either. And to avoid the confusion, you could always give the new metric units different names ("moots and minches", maybe?)
A lot of traditional units are based on random reference points that were an issue from antiquity - consider how pretty much every market town kept their own measure references even if they used same terminology.
That said, Fahrenheit use of brine solution for 0 and his wife's armpit for 100 remains among most WTF for me.
> A lot of traditional units are based on random reference points that were an issue from antiquity - consider how pretty much every market town kept their own measure references even if they used same terminology.
A lot of that was because keeping the definition of units consistent across time and space was very hard in ancient and mediaeval times, even the first few centuries of the modern period. Units were defined in terms of physical artefacts (as long as this metal rod, as heavy as this particular stone), which tended over the centuries to be lost or stolen, or slowly decay. Issues such as expansion and contraction of metals at different temperatures were also not widely understood, and accurate/reproducible thermometers didn't exist until the 18th century. As we improved our knowledge of natural science, we became more and more aware of these issues – but the initial solution was often just to make the whole country adopt the standard of the national capital, and empires were made to adopt the standard of the imperial capital (the British don't call their traditional units "Imperial" for nothing)
When it comes to precision machining, even Americans seem to prefer to use "thous" (1/1,000") and "tenths" (1/10,000"). Isn't it strange that the preferred measurements aren't fractional: 1/1,728" and 1/20,736"? Why do you think that is?
What would a machine shop say if you called out a dimension as (5,081/20,736")?
I think they'd stare at it for a while, chuckle at your sense of humor, and then punch it into a calculator to work it out in decimals.
The biggest argument against base 10 is that one day our descendants will have to explain to aliens, "because the monkeys that built us had ten fingers".
It's also worth noting that English and American units also differ slightly --- one of the more common examples being that the US gallon is not the same as the Imperial gallon.
in the end, who cares? It’s just a name on a unit. There is no law of nature that puts a limit on its value. There always have been many definitions for an ounce (one of the reason for going metric in the first place); this one is just a bit on the large side.
Are they actually designed and manufactured in inches, or only marketed in inches?
Almost everyone called 90 mm floppy disks "3.5 inch", despite the fact the formal standard which defined their dimensions was metric. I believe the same was true of the "5.25 inch" disks which preceded them. (I think the original 8-inch floppy disks were non-metric though???)
Strictly speaking, this is also a consumer-oriented thing, using the diagonal. The diagonal is also misleading, because it gives no information about the dimensions and aspect ratio of a given panel. Consider a 15.6" 16:9 display, versus a (now increasingly more common) 16" 16:10 display.
Panel manufacturers are all based in Asia, and measure only the edges in millimetres, as they should. Even xrandr outputs EDID data in millimetres.
CRTs were 4:3 and tiny, they could fit basically everywhere. The diagonal was more than enough for consumers. Computer monitors started to have different ratios but they were not as widespread as today, even in a world of laptops and mobile devices.
The last time I had to buy a TV set I was more interested in the width of the appliance (screen plus bezel) than in its diagonal because I had to fit it into a set space. I went to a shop with a tape ruler.
Gas and water pipes are often in inches too (Italy) probably because it's an old and critical infrastructure and nobody wants to risk mistakes by trying to fit a 1 inch pipe with a 25 mm one, or 1 1/4" with a 32 mm. Close but not close enough.
However I guess that even American engines are measured in liters or cc, cubic centimeters.
> Gas and water pipes are often in inches too (Italy)
English inches (now 25.4 mm) or Italian inches? (“once”/“oncia”-varied in definition between different parts of Italy, but was always at least a fraction more or less than the English one)
I'm not sure I ever heard the Italian word oncia as a unit of length. I thought it was a translation of the imperial unit of weight, ounce. However all is possible in the world of the old semi forgotten traditional units.
In Germany we've got 'Unze' (ounce) which is defined as ~30g which we only use when talking about precious metals.
What we do use is 'Pfund' (pounds lbs) which is defined as 500g.
I am amazed the nations of the world actually came to an agreement about what to use as base units and I can't even fathom what shit show it must've been before that.
I live a 30min drive away from the Netherlands and your ounce is already 230% more then my ounce.
Interestingly, a mile was originally the less surprising 5000 feet. But in the 1500s the English changed the mile to be 8 furlongs, as that made for much easier math around the agricultural measurements of the time.
Connecting 1 mile to 5280 feet happened many centuries after the medieval period. Such precision wasn't really possible nor desired before the 18th century.
To be specific, 5280 feet = 1 mile didn't happen until 1959 and the United States needed higher precision and remove all the fuzziness out of the units. It might be inconvenient on some aspects, but it was also "close enough" to what miles were already established to be.
>To be specific, 5280 feet = 1 mile didn't happen until 1959 and the United States needed higher precision and remove all the fuzziness out of the units. It might be inconvenient on some aspects, but it was also "close enough" to what miles were already established to be.
uh what? are you sure you're not mixing that up with the international geophysical year or something? the mile has been 1760 yards since before the US even existed. it's called the imperial system because of the british empire. they couldn't have done the great trigonometrical survey of india without an accurate mile.
> I wish that all miles were nautical miles because they have a real meaning.
Could you define 'real' here please?
This feels like one of those 'customary is better because you can't divide 10 by 3 using only integers' claims.
You seem to be asserting that once you divide a circle into 360 arcs, then at a a certain distance from the focus, one of those arcs has a certain meaning.
I would say that because ~ 2 millennia ago the Greeks pinched the Babylonian's use of 360, and the Babylonians came to that number by perfecting a rough days-in-a-year measurement used for astronomy over the previous 2 millennia, a nautical mile now has a derived / coincidental meaning, more so than a 'real' one.
EDIT: And this is before contemplating the complications of living on an oblate spheroid - the NM's length depends on where you are.
Each of those arcs do have a meaning, they're called 'degrees' and any human being whose not being obtuse for the sake of argument would tell you that they're 'real'. The point of calling nautical miles 'real' is that you can do easy mental math with them to express a distance in terms of latitude and longitude.
The actual length of a nautical mile only makes sense because we have this weird way of measuring earth (based on how we measure circles).
NM's were obviously defined using that weird numbering system - 360 degrees in a circle, 60 minutes in a degree, 60 seconds in a minute - so it shouldn't be a surprise that they 'feel real' within that system.
Given a quarter of the circumference of earth is ~ 10,000km, it seems ripe for using base-10 and metric units ... but for the fact, obviously, that these arc-based-at-6-thousand-km-from-the-centre measurements are highly variable and not hugely useful.
> The point of calling nautical miles 'real' is that you can do easy mental math with them to express a distance in terms of latitude and longitude.
And that's not true either.
At best it works for latitude -- even a small way from the equator you'll suffer the effects of longitudinal meridians converging.
But at that point, why not just do your mental math in minutes rather than (yet another) mile variant?
I didn't say 'in one's head', merely used the same phrasing as nmilo.
If you're using a plotter, then actual length is presumably irrelevant - any unit would do, yes?
I was not asserting that nautical miles don't have meaning - just that their meaning is even more arbitrary than most other units of measurement, except in this case they're extra useless because they align to what they ostensibly derive from only at or near the equator.
If you want to use something 'around that size', and you're very keen on avoiding metric at all costs, then why not just use the 'upstream' unit - a minute? Obviously it still suffers from converging meridians if you measure from a plane through the sphere, but I'm not sure what number of measurement problems you're happy to contend with.
You need some reference. The latitude grid is available anywhere on your chart, with multiple subdivisions, so even when your boat is shaking like crazy you'll be able to draw a course ad hoc (which requires estimating drifts due to wind and tide etc., which are conveniently given in knots (so nautical miles per hour)).
The coordinate grid may be arbitrary (though having a lot of factors is nice), but the derived nautical mile is not.
> which are conveniently given in knots (so nautical miles per hour)).
Yes. We may be misunderstanding each other.
It's convenient to have nautical miles per hour if you're using a base unit of nautical miles, and your map grid is nautical miles based. This isn't a surprise at all.
Estimating wind, tides, drift, etc, would be equally as easy if everyone was working in kilometres, and your maps were showing grids based on multiples-of-kilometres, and all speeds were given in kilometres per hour. Again, wouldn't be a surprise.
Right, but what’s the point of arguing about the real-ness of something you’re using without verifying it ever. The equator (or the 45th parallel, or any meridian) is not a circle; nobody ever said anything like “man, it’s so much more natural that the equator is 21638.778 nmi instead of that ugly 40,075.017 km”.
What good is converting miles into feet anyway? I've never found a reason to perform that conversion, or reverse. A mile is just an arbitrary unit of distance that doesn't need to be related to any other. Even in sports, swimmers may casually call a 1650 yard swim 'a mile' but if you do the conversion it isn't. That doesn't matter to anybody though.
To be perfectly honest, I never remember how many feet are in a mile and the only times I've looked it up have been to calculate some meaningless trivia like how many tape measures it would take to stretch across the country, or some useless nonsense like that. Even then I usually just approximate 3 feet to a meter and 1.6 km to a mile, close enough.
Can you really imagine no scenario when this might happen? Like "A to B is one mile, B to C is 200 feet, how long is A to B to C"? You've never come across anything like this in your whole life?
Agreed. When I learnt about nautical miles and knots (nm/h) which is both used by aviation and sailors, I feel we should be using nautical miles for all travel distance.
Miles really don’t have much meaning.
If someone goes at 60 nautical miles per hour (111.112 km/h), for 360 hours (15 days), they cover the circumference of the planet around the equator. I.e go around the planet.
What good is a mile to begin with. Just use kms and then we have a nice round figure. Being from the US and as someone that does a lot of woodworking, I’m very used to inches but I can’t do anything beyond basic calculations in inches and always have to pull out a very specific carpenters calculator. It’s not trivial to add up 2’13/32” + 5’11/16”, there’s too much carrying over and doubling to equalize the denominators to do easily in your head. That’s just addition, dividing is a whole other beast.
But say you have to divide a 8 3/8” board into 5 parts. That turns into an ugly 771/40. What do you even do with that using an imperial measuring tape?
Are you visually or mentally impaired? I don't mean it in any condescending way. I can add those on the spot by just looking at the numbers and tell you result immediately, that's primary school level math in Europe.
2405.25 + 5687.5 is easily 8092.75. But in both cases not using a calculator and not doing an operation on it at least twice (if it has no log) is a recipe for wtf, imo. An expensive mistake requires only one miscalculation.
It isn't easier, but 6.112cm + 14.446cm is fairly easy. Especially if you drop thousandths, which you can only maybe get when measuring with a caliper...
Yeah, I don’t think woodworking is the best example for arguing that metric is better than imperial. In fact, it’s one of the few disciplines where the imperial system as a decent argument for superiority.
Sorry, I dabble with woodworking and disagree heavily. I usually don't care for bigger precision than 1mm (so between 1/16" and 1/32"), and adding things up is a nightmare ("umm... 7 3/16" + 2 1/8" + 5 1/4" is... where's a goddamn pen & paper..."). Same with figuring out which line is which fraction of an inch on measuring tools. Things became tolerable once I got metric measuring tape.
Once you get past the dabbling stage it starts to get pretty natural. I don't think either system is better, the value is mostly tied up with what's on the shelves at the local home center and how your measuring tools are marked.
The stuff on the shelves is rarely sized precisely enough for the units to matter. I've bought 1/4" ply that measured much closer to 6.0 mm than to 1/4".
Sure, if tools are dirt cheap you can just sacrifice to Benford's Law and use base 10. If tools are not cheap, you'll learn to use base 2, one way or another.
I doubt I'll ever be able to quickly add fractions in base-2 (it doesn't happen often enough to train this), so pen+paper will always be a necessity if I wanted to stick to imperial. I could see getting the intuition for "which line is the eights vs sixteenths" over time though, but if the one-off calculations are going to be such a pain, I don't really see a point.
My FIL is a fine art woodworker (makes stupidly nice furniture, canoes that are functional art, etc.), and he uses both. He’s done it so long that he can work with fractions instantly in his head, but he also fully admits that metric is way easier for a lot of it, and so uses both as needed.
About the only example of imperial being easier I can think of is that the thin-kerf saw blades he buys are American, and thus are measured in inches - 1/16” to be precise. It’d be tremendously annoying to deal with 1.588 mm. If he had a 1.5 mm blade, of course, it would be the other way around.
Woodworking measurement has two forms: lumber, which is notional, pre drying, shrinkage and rough handling, and cut, which is required to be beautiful. Sometimes, it isn't about feet and inches as much as "the same"
Plumbing is another example where imperial works and is even used in Europe. It doesn't matter that a pipe is 3", it may as well be called "type B", since all you care about is if it's big enough for the purpose (you look that up in building code) and if the parts match together. The moment you need to perform calculations is when imperial becomes a total PITA to use.
WDYM by minimum radius? Are you referring to the part of my post where I wrote that you just look it up in the building code (as opposed to trying to calculate it), or when actually designing where the pipe runs?
The intersection of both. I did a very bad job of plumbing an electric shower into my flat in York back in the 80s and working out how to route the pipe to meet both ends requirement of where I could connect it into supply, and where it had to be to deliver water to the heater, was massively confusing. I am sure a plumber would understand this innately, but I wasted 2+ m of copper pipe trying to "route" it, without understanding the limits of how I could bend it, or cut and use a fitting.
The building code(s) only get you so far. There's also aesthetics.
I made the mistake of watching (as a kid) a plumber use his own body to form the curves, and assumed "it's that easy" without taking in that he was 25 years past his apprenticeship and had bent thousands of pipes, and used a former almost all the time. It's a different game when its you, the pipe, and twenty needle-jets of water streaming out of the badly fitted olives, lack of PTFE (or too much) tools which don't fit, pipe with ugly crinkles in them, splits along the length...
> It’s not trivial to add up 2’13/32” + 5’11/16”, there’s too much carrying over and doubling to equalize the denominators to do easily in your head.
Seems like straight forward arithmetic, but if using a calculator is a must, the HP 35s (RPN daily driver) handles fractional calculations elegantly without being a "very specific carpenters calculator":
2.13.32 [Enter] 5.11.16 [+]
8.09375
...and if you wanted that decimal as fractional display instead:
Now change that first number from 6.112 to 6.789 and watch that same child stumble.
I've always found it curious how Europeans pride themselves in speaking their native tongue + English...except its always a cultural flame war-inciting impediment when the communication barrier involves a mere arithmetic unit conversion. Doubly ironic when most of the world is consciously aware of what the prevailing USD exchange rate with their native currency is without complaint, whereas the average American simply doesn't have a clue how many Euros a US dollar gets them.
Similarly, if the Brits want to reference weight in stone, or Canadians want to sell me lumber in board-foot, I don't find that offensive in the least; I'm of the position that the impetus is on me to understand their measure, not for the one communicating to conform to my norms.
Really, this is primary school maths. I learnt about carries when I was seven.
Every single thread (both here and on Reddit) I've seen says 'oh, decimals are too hard'.
This is a terrible indictment of the American schooling system if your only defence against metrication is 'I can't do decimals'. It is you lot who have to catch up.
> This is a terrible indictment of the American schooling system if your only defence against metrication is 'I can't do decimals'. It is you lot who have to catch up.
To the contrary, if you read into the full context of this thread, the underlying contention isn't that we're incompetent at decimal arithmetic, but that the rest of the world (and apparently some Americans too) believes our common fractional arithmetic is too much of a mental burden, and I don't blame those individuals either.
Indeed decimal arithmetic is trivial to most grown adults, but that wasn't the point; the example was merely to highlight how just slightly changing a few numbers in the same sequence of operations serves as an effective counterpoint to the grandparent's assertion that "even children can do in their head reliably".
Americans are taught and handle metric units in compulsory school just fine, but most of us also practice imperial units on a daily basis as well. We're just not culturally predisposed to complain when everyone else conveys measure in the SI mks/cgs framework.
I agree with the current of the thread, that mixed numbers are decidedly inferior to decimals. They're not harder, strictly speaking, but are more tedious, and this additional tedium introduces steps that people can make mistakes in. Fractions are also not easily parsed by standard desk calculators, and are not easily printed in a single line. They may even be mistaken by someone in a hurry as three separate numbers.
Decimals do away with all this unnecessary pain, and this really is the key point of metrication: it is a waste of time and effort to use non-SI units and convert back and forth or deal with mixed numbers. That's what people are complaining about: it is exasperating when Americans dredge mediæval units up in the 21st century, when we have a modern, simple, and unified system of units available.
> ...mixed numbers are decidedly inferior to decimals. They're not harder, strictly speaking, but are more tedious, and this additional tedium introduces steps that people can make mistakes in.
A counterpoint to this is the fact that there are close to a million employed carpenter tradesmen in the US whose average level of education is a high school diploma[1], and yet their trade operates almost exclusively on fractional arithmetic, most of which occurs mentally on the jobsite.
The point being that tedium is a relative measure of training and experience, and it goes without saying that those trained in only decimal form are liable to struggle with unfamiliar systems.
And if you think that's bad, try purchasing lumber from any lumber yard in Canada or the US; the trade's board-foot system[2] will really tickle your metric attachment.
> it is a waste of time and effort to use non-SI units and convert back and forth.
It seems the story is more like it's a waste of time to those who find value in what Americans have to say but are unaccustomed and insistently resistant to performing conversions. I don't disagree that there's certainly value in having a globally common measurement framework, and indeed an American who conveys imperial units in a European setting is liable to be chastised. But old habits die hard and last time I checked, we're not having this discussion on a .eu gTLD.
Now try imagining how the typical American feels when engaging with the rest of the world: SI units, (,) and (.) symbols reversed, left-lane driving, etc. We tend to just adapt.
It’s baffling to me how you twist and turn the perfectly clear explanation of the parent poster into some convoluted argument in favor of imperial units. Essentially, it boils down to ”we’ve always done it this way, we don’t mind pointless busywork, and doing stuff different to everyone else is a good thing“.
Tell you what, just keep it on that side of the Atlantic and continue buying our natural gas, and since we're so biased to a fault towards "we've always done it this way", we'll keep buying your most excellent products that conform to Reinheitsgebot.
Unsure with the 48g; trained myself since engineering undergrad days to not lean into graphing calculators. The feature existed since at least the 32sii, so it makes sense that successor 33s and 35s models also got it. Easily one of the most useful features that I've found for woodworking and converting arcmin/sec to decimal as the most common usecases.
I'm not a sea dog (or air dog), but even absent electronic calculation and navigation devices of the last half century or so, is there any real advantage to using nm vs any other unit? Other than for the presumably niche case of traveling exactly directly along the equator, that is.
nm are great because charts and speeds are in units of nm and kt of course, but what does "real meaning" give you exactly?
Am sea dog, I think it's just a little bit of smugness. Because it doesn't generally help (besides quickly estimating latitudinal distance or near-equatorial distance), unless you are actually doing dead reckoning with a chart or similar, which is rare today.
The equivalency with knots is great and all but it too is just a convention
In practice, when navigating by pen and paper, what you do is you measure a distance on the chart with a divider, then you put the divider (with the previously measured distance set) to the north-south scale on the side of the chart to read out the distance in nautical miles.
Now, of course, in principle charts could have a separate scale for distances in km, and we could use km for navigation just fine. But, well, I've never seen a nautical chart with such a scale.
I think the only advantage is when using old navigation devices. You measure altitude of sun at noon and that is your latitude, time of noon is your longitude. It also only works when going east-west, it falls apart any other angle.
These days, everybody has plotter or phone to measure position and speed and calculate distances.
rant: I live in the US for more than 10 years and I still can't get used to the imperial system. I never will. It just doesn't make any sense to me. The metric system is pure gold:
What I've come to realize, also from living in the US, is that most Americans just don't convert between units. Unless they really have to. That way the issue does't really come up much.
I notice it most when things here by chance are done in metric, but the units still aren't converted.
E.g. I might see something listed at 1000mL, instead of just writing 1L. Or 3500g instead of 3.5kg.
Sometimes a European might say "This way is 600m, but that way is 1.2km", an American would never say "This way is 800 yards, but that way is a mile".
A European might say "I had to carry 4L of water, so my bag got 4kg heavier".
An American might say "My bottle is 24 (fluid) oz, so it's about 24 (weight) oz", but if it's a gallon, they probably just say it weights around a gallon.
All I'm saying is that the conversion problem has turned out to be less of an issue than I imagined.
Simple because Americans don't run around converting their units every sentence.
... which is a natural result of such an obscure system that is needlessly complex for everybody involved. If you can't do conversions on spot as a population, you simply over time don't do it and this state becomes natural. Just like for us literally everywhere else in the world we convert and literally everybody with even very subpar intelligence can be discussed with in such units.
Suffice to say, we had tons if very similar obscure systems in medieval Europe, even my tiny eastern country had at least 6 with various absurd conversion schemes for lengths, volumes and weights. These days we go to museums or medieval wiki pages if we want to see that. The thing is, we moved to modern era and absolutely nobody looks back.
I suspect with US its more an ego thing and swallowing pride that somebody else can he it simply better, rather than anything else. I mean whenever US actually needs to do some proper science and achieve great stuff, it turns quietly to metric/liters/kilograms. We have 10 fingers 100% of the time right in front of our face and everybody learns to count on them first, there is really nothing more natural.
It seems like many Americans are really confused about weights and volumes, because of this unit system.
Like if you say to use 300g of flour, the response will automatically be « How many cups is that ? ». And the answer is that you can’t measure flour correctly by volume.
> I notice it most when things here by chance are done in metric, but the units still aren't converted. E.g. I might see something listed at 1000mL, instead of just writing 1L. Or 3500g instead of 3.5kg.
I see things like this constantly in shops in Europe. I think it is part of a dark pattern to make price comparisons less intuitive and even misleading if you just skip over the prices trying to find the cheapest. What is cheaper, the product advertised as $X per liter or the one priced $Y per 100ml? There usually isn't a significant difference in packaging volume or usage that would otherwise explain why anyone would use different units for each.
> I see things like this constantly in shops in Europe. I think it is part of a dark pattern to make price comparisons less intuitive
In Germany they put the price of a unit on the price tag. So that you can clearly see that 0.33 bottle of Coke is more expensive (per liter) than the 1l.
Germany is a big user of the trick "lemme change the unit from €/kg to €/100g in this part of the shop", for example at the cheese counter, which is what the parent is saying. It was the same trick used in the UK.
I believe it comes from a european rules which allows such labeling if the packaging is small.
In France it is always labelled in €/kg or €/L consistently through the shop.
> > I notice it most when things here by chance are done in metric, but the units still aren't converted. E.g. I might see something listed at 1000mL, instead of just writing 1L. Or 3500g instead of 3.5kg.
> I see things like this constantly in shops in Europe. I think it is part of a dark pattern to make price comparisons less intuitive and even misleading if you just skip over the prices trying to find the cheapest.
It doesn't really matter though, as conversion is so easy and automatic.
Meanwhile in the US, if I want to determine which product has more fat, my butter lists nutrition per tea spoon, my milk by the cup, my yogurt by 3/4 of a cup, another butter per 100g, yet other products per 24 ounces.
Honestly I don't know if anybody is able to extract useful information from those comparisons, without pulling out a calculator in the super market.
At least in Germany shops play rather loosely with the units. Yes, you have €/kg but you also have €/100g, €/g, ... and they will switch between them even for near identical products. Can't cheat buyers out of money by selling them a 30% larger bottle if you make it too obvious that they are paying 40% more for it.
I’m puzzled by this. How hard is it to convert prices by powers of 10? Do the same thing with $/lb and $/oz, and I’d be lost.
Edit: Oh wait, I get it. It’s just that a price per 100 g is an order if magnitude less than per kg, so psychology kicks in and makes it look cheaper, even though the conversion is trivial. A bit like the 9.99 effect.
But this could just be part of the pattern of Europeans being more lose with unit changing, because it's so easy to do anyway.
People just tend to use the units that keep the values in a reasonable range of 1-10.
In US customary units, a fluid ounce of water does not weigh an ounce avoirdupois, because US volume measures are not Imperial units: they are based on the pre-Imperial Queen Anne wine gallon.
The British fluid ounce was defined to be the volume of an ounce of water, and the Imperial gallon was defined to be the volume of 10lb of water. This vague nod towards decimalization happened to match the pre-Imperial beer gallon fairly well, and it’s also why the Imperial pint has 20 fl oz instead of 16.
You missed a few intermediate units, which might help somewhat to explain it:
Derived from surveyors’ tools, a chain is 22 yards. (It is also 4 rods, making a rod equal to 5½ yards; go figure.) Ten chains make a furlong, and there are 8 furlongs to a mile. So there you are. Incidentally, an acre is 1 furlong × 1 chain. It may be madness, yet there’s system in ‘t.
What do you need to convert those inches into? Why would you ever need to convert those inches into miles? Nothing you will ever do in life requires you to convert between inches (or feet and inches) and miles.
The owner of the reservoir doesn’t bother to measure it in square miles, he measures the acreage. Then the acre–feet becomes a trivial computation. Yes, if pressed he might dredge up the obscure fact that a square mile is 640 acres, but then he would have to do long division to convert it, and the whole point is to avoid that kind of complexity.
Weird real-life unit conversions come up all the time, often when you need to calculate a net weight or price, and you have some big surface area (eg. a road, with width in yards + feet, thickness in inches, and length in miles), and your gravel supplier prices by ton, and you look up the density in a conversion table and see something like lbs/ft^3, and now you have a whole bunch of opportunities to make a mistake.
You have to lay 3miles of pavement, 5 feet wide, bricks are 5x10 inches. How many bricks to buy?
You have 4 square mile of land with dense forest. Trees grow 5 feet apart and are 10 inches thick on average. How many trees are there? How much wood can you expect?
There's 5 inches of snow on your 5000 square feet roof. How much does it weight? Can it break the roof? Should you clean it up or can it stay?
These things are mental-math in metric and notebook-math in imperial, and that sucks.
Of course you can work around that. People always avoid the bad parts of the tools they use and find workarounds. Like not using exceptions in C++ or comparisons in javascript. If it's a widely used tool you know it has to work somehow.
Thus Americans never convert between units unless absolutely necessary and write press articles like "Asteroid the size of 3 elephants missed Earth by 1000 football stadiums" :)
You kind of mess it up from the beginning by assuming everything is based of 5 or 10 unit fractions for the math. Do it with 2,3,4,6,8 inch standards and metric becomes notebook and imperial becomes mental.
Do you mean because people just use metric in those contexts, or that everyone avoids math?
I assure you people regularly figure out how many small things fit in a large thing. I places where those things are measured in feet and miles, that's what they'd use.
I mean that in every context where a person would ever have to convert units or do long division, we invent a new set of units instead.
Others have given other examples, such as printers who divide the inch into points and picas. They do this because it makes figuring out how many characters fit in a line of type easier than if they measured the type in fractions of an inch. It lets them work with integers instead of fractions all day. Of course these days it’s all computer–driven and it hardly matters what units printers use; the computer does the counting and could just as easily do it in fractions of an inch.
Printing measures go smaller than an inch.
The width of printed columns is measured in “picas.”
12 “points” equal one “pica”; 6 picas equal 1 inch.
We still use those in image resolution measurements.
Unit conversions are inconvenient for sure, but I think the worst part is actually fractional length measurements. It may make sense for woodworking and handicraft, which I assume is the origin, but for any other use? Try reading 2 3/16" on an imperial ruler as quickly as 5.6cm. Screw sizes also get affected by this.
As someone who uses imperial measures, it is incredibly fast and easy to read fractional inch measures on a measuring tape or ruler because each fractional unit is half of the previous unit size, and they are marked to differentiate each half size measure from the previous for quick reading. To speed things up I wouldn't count three ticks, I would use a 1/8th tick mark count up one more 1/16th tick.
If you find it difficult, it is merely due to lack of experience in using fractional measures.
As a European having watched many house framer videos on Youtube, the imperial system of in/ft actually somehow makes sense there. As far math, it's pretty annoying, but as far as communicating ratios or dividing distances into halves or fourths, it seems like a better fit to the human brain.
Yeah, a lot of people really don't get how useful fractional measures can be for building and construction, or other tasks. You can do like 99% of the math required to build a residential home completely in your head, even if you aren't great at math to start with. You could even forgo a tape measure completely and build the house using a piece of wood with a mark to give a standard length and then doing all the rest with a piece of string you fold over for ratios of that length.
It even was really useful when I was making patterns and molds for industrial ceramics. Half the orders would be in metric, half would be in imperial, but was 90% of the time converted to imperial by everybody whenever possible despite knowing both systems because it was much faster to get work done using ratios of standard fractional sizes. Need more precision? Divide your unit in half how many times you needed.
> Jesus Christ, who the hell came up with this madness?
They made historical sense.
A foot is the distance in one step (ie, a foot placed after the other). A mile was the distance a person could walk in an hour. A pound was roughly a fist worth's of meat-- so if a piece of meat was fist sized it was roughly a pound in weight.
These were intuitive units that made sense when they were invented. It was only later on when we needed more accuracy that the metric system was invented
I believe an opportunity was missed some time ago in the past to define one inch to 25.6mm, which would make for much nicer conversions IMO, especially with the convention to use fractions of powers of two in the inch world (e.g. 15/16" would be 24mm exactly vs. 23.8125mm).
Usually the absolute value of units is preserved as much as possible when a unit is redefined.
In the 1800s when Britain and the USA stopped keeping their units in alignment, they both defined conversion factors in terms of inches per metre (the inverse of the modern definition). However the conversion factors were slightly different. In the 1920s and 1930s, Carl Edvard Johansson used 25.4mm as a compromise between the two definitions when making his guage blocks, and this became a de facto standard that was later blessed as the international standard inch.
Is it really novel to you that a more modern system is based on powers of 10 for ease of use? Were you just as mad when you discovered Egyptians used hieroglyphics as their method of writing?
Not so quick: One inch may be 1/12 of a foot, but a foot is not necessarily a foot. The international foot is 12×2.54 mm, but a US survey foot is 1200/3937 m. The ratio of the definitions is 500000/499999.
But nobody would ever use a survey foot outside of surveying, and if you are using survey foot outside of talking to other surveyors you would call it a survey foot, or be using it in a context where that tiny inconsistency doesn't matter. Something being 5 feet away in feet is still for all practical purposes 5 survey feet away, nobody is going to pull out a 5 foot set of calipers to measure that 1/100,000th of a foot difference. And nobody would use survey feet for anything that requires that sort of precision.
You might as well complain about meter measurements from 100 years ago not being exactly the same as a modern meter.
Not complaining really. I mentioned this mostly for entertainment value, besides pointing out that things are not always as straightforward as it might seem. (Also triggered by the absurd precision of the number in the title.)
The first time I saw one of her demonstrations of a nanosecond, I was confused when she pulled out a length of wire. I don’t remember what class it was in or what context the video was being used, but this was 6th grade
Possibly an urban legend but there's a story about a company in India that ordered a Soviet made computer system that has an sloppy spool of wire attached to the main board. They contacted the Soviet institute that built the computer system and it was explained that the computer needed a timing delay between two components but didn't have the proper ICs on hand so they used a precise length of wire to introduce the needed delay to make the timing correct.
As a stone cold fact physical mediums with known delay timings were once used as memory storage for computers and as "echo removal" filters in radar installations.
Although a mathematician, Turing took quite an interest in the engineering side of computer design.
There was some discussion in 1947 as to whether a cheaper substance than mercury could not be found for use as an ultrasonic delay medium.
Turing's contribution to this discussion was to advocate the use of gin, which he said contained alcohol and water in just the right proportions to give a zero temperature coefficient of propagation velocity at room temperature.
Back in the old days of analog video, component video was three separate cables. When we made custom cables, we had to ensure the cables were the same length to ensure the timing was within tolerance. The day we got to switch to digital SDI which also included audio as like a gift from the gods
This was probably also due to impedance matching between all the lines involved.
Digital signals (when using N/P balanced lines) also have this problem, to a lesser extent. Some CAD EE design software have ways to design squiggly traces to balanced impedances in traces that have to go around corners on the PCB and end up with different lengths.
This is still a problem for modern multi-lane digital connections, like PCI Express. The solution? Make each individual lane self-timing, and compensate for it digitally in the receiver buffer.
Yeah, I think it would be neat to change time to be defined as 1 chrono = how long it takes for light to go 1e9 meters. 1 kilochrono is 55 minutes. Useful enough for space travel type situations where you can’t rely on solar days for units.
Reliably means close enough to be useful, but the estimation is also quite precise where most populations live.
My use case which led me to discover this fact is sort of documented here: https://twitter.com/mholt6/status/1695685022710477043 -- even if my use case did have whole kilometers of displacement, it wouldn't likely be near the poles, and if it was, the answer would be, "Meh, we get it, you're at the pole."
The Earth diameter at the equator is 43 km larger than at the poles.
It's like the Earth orbit: we learn in school that it's an ellipse, but we are never actually given a sense of the shape, and most of the drawings give a completely wrong idea.
The title of the post could make you think that a degree of latitude varies by less than a decimeter, but that is of course not true. But close enough for many practical purposes, definitely.
This post also has a nice rule of thumb that 111,111 * cos(latitude) meters is 1 degree of longitude. I like the correction! In practice you can use some simple constants; 25° is about 100,000 meters. 44° is about 80,000 meters. 57° is about 60,000 meters.
It then follows straightforwardly that 1° ≡ 1/90 × 10^7 m = 111 111.111... m.
It also follows straightforwardly that the circumference of Earth is approximately forty million metres, or 40 000 km.
[0]: Edit: the initial definition of the metre was the length of a seconds pendulum, i.e. the length of a pendulum with a period of two seconds.
Given the formula T ≈ 2π√(L/g), letting T = 2 and L = 1, we have 1 = π√(1/g), and 1 = π²/g.
This is also why g is so close to the value of π²—because the former is expressed in units that are defined that way. It's also not a coincidence that 1 cm³ of water is 1 g—for a long time, that was the definition of the gram.