Talk:3138: Dimensional Lumber Tape Measure - Revision history

Slashme: German wood - good.

2025-11-27T14:46:53Z

German wood - good.

172.223.58.201 at 16:19, 5 October 2025

2025-10-05T16:19:02Z

These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For: A funny?

2025-09-14T00:17:47Z

A funny?

82.132.238.27 at 20:04, 9 September 2025

2025-09-09T20:04:46Z

2600:1700:B39:3010:30E0:301C:3150:8ABF: added notes on wood sizing

2025-09-09T18:17:05Z

added notes on wood sizing

JohnHawkinson: (notional) tape measure forums

2025-09-09T13:09:35Z

(notional) tape measure forums

82.132.238.27 at 11:58, 9 September 2025

2025-09-09T11:58:38Z

86.163.160.215 at 11:15, 9 September 2025

2025-09-09T11:15:18Z

86.163.160.215 at 08:56, 9 September 2025

2025-09-09T08:56:56Z

Fabian42 at 07:26, 9 September 2025

2025-09-09T07:26:40Z

@@ Line 26: / Line 26: @@
 :That would be pretty ahistorical, so I think it is indeed wrong. Drywall is a relatively modern invention, and I think the standardization of 2x4s as 1.5″ thick predates it (need to check that…but even if it didn't, then it would be worse). Wood lath and plaster walls are more like 5/8″ from the stud face, if not more. And, of course, in modern American multifamily residential construction 5/8″ walls are more common, or even double-5/8″ walls (making 1 1/4″) in fire-rated assemblies. So it does not even end up being "convenient," not that a 4" wall assembly is particulary more "convenient" than a 4.5″ or a 4.125″ or a 4.75″ wall assembly…very little turns on the thickness of the stud plus wallboard, but a lot turns on the thickness of the stud cavity (insulation, space for utilities, &c.) or the thickness of the drywall (spacing of electrical outlets, mudrings, etc.). [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 04:20, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
 Once again, the UK wins on ridiculousness. I bought some fencing materials yesterday. The panels were 1.83m x 1.22m, so they could be metric but nevertheless 6' x 4'. I got some presawn posts that were 2400mm long (so kind of 8', or close enough), and they were sold as 75mm x 75mm, so they were 3x3, but they fit perfectly into the 70mm x 70mm post supports I got to go with them. Using metric to sidestep the need for traditional-measurement nonsense...but just keeping the nonsense and throwing new numbers at it. Actually, that should rendered into Latin and put on a scroll as part of a national coat of arms. [[User:Yorkshire Pudding|Yorkshire Pudding]] ([[User talk:Yorkshire Pudding|talk]]) 09:49, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
 Since the tape measure uses variable length inches, the watch (provided by the cartoonist) might be similar to Vetinari's clock.  (Where individual ticks are of random duration.)  I looked to see if xkcd had covered such a clock before (for possible link), but didn't find one. [[Special:Contributions/2600:387:4:803:0:0:0:90|2600:387:4:803:0:0:0:90]] 19:16, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:19, 5 October 2025
Line 50:		Line 50:

	:::I know both. I can use both. I started out with imperial. But I choose to use metric, because metric is so very obviously superior. [[User:Yorkshire Pudding\|Yorkshire Pudding]] ([[User talk:Yorkshire Pudding\|talk]]) 15:17, 8 September 2025 (UTC)		:::I know both. I can use both. I started out with imperial. But I choose to use metric, because metric is so very obviously superior. [[User:Yorkshire Pudding\|Yorkshire Pudding]] ([[User talk:Yorkshire Pudding\|talk]]) 15:17, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
		+
		+	::::I am also a cook. I do all or part of the cooking on a regular basis for multiple families. The system ''I am accustomed to'' is the "obviously superior" one. While I can use both, multiplication by two (or three or five or 19) is just as easy as by ten. More importantly, grabbing the "nonsensical volumetric cups", while more than a little inaccurate, is very easy compared to grabbing the scale and making sure it's tare'd correctly for each ingredient. You also ignore the intrinsic issues with the metric system as well, given your example: two eggs is very easy to work with, while 114gm of eggs just begs for the same half-again issues. While the metric system has many advantages, I'm responding to your very clear tone that you feel superior since you "upgraded" which system you use. Perhaps most importantly, as a cook AND a baker, I'm also well aware that no measurements really need that much precision in cooking. Source: I do almost all my "measuring" by "feel" which is so very obviously superior to both. AlexaDTink [[Special:Contributions/172.223.58.201\|172.223.58.201]] 16:19, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

	:::Of course, American recipes get round this problem by measuring things by volume, using a standard cup size.--[[Special:Contributions/86.163.160.215\|86.163.160.215]] 11:15, 9 September 2025 (UTC)		:::Of course, American recipes get round this problem by measuring things by volume, using a standard cup size.--[[Special:Contributions/86.163.160.215\|86.163.160.215]] 11:15, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:17, 14 September 2025
Line 63:		Line 63:

	More notes on nominal wood sizing - The nominal lengths of framing lumber are not adjusted, so a nominal 2"x4"x8' board is actually 1.5"x3.5"x8'. In fact they are often slightly oversize to allow for cutting to exact length. However, the nominal length and width for sheet goods like plywood are normally accurate although thickness may or may not be, with softwood sheet goods usually being around 1/4" thinner than stated and hardwood typically being accurate. {{unsigned ip\|2600:1700:b39:3010:30e0:301c:3150:8abf\|18:17, 9 September 2025}}		More notes on nominal wood sizing - The nominal lengths of framing lumber are not adjusted, so a nominal 2"x4"x8' board is actually 1.5"x3.5"x8'. In fact they are often slightly oversize to allow for cutting to exact length. However, the nominal length and width for sheet goods like plywood are normally accurate although thickness may or may not be, with softwood sheet goods usually being around 1/4" thinner than stated and hardwood typically being accurate. {{unsigned ip\|2600:1700:b39:3010:30e0:301c:3150:8abf\|18:17, 9 September 2025}}
		+
		+	I tried to pay for some gasoline with dimensional currency, and the Secret Service has just pulled me over. :( [[User:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For\|These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For]] ([[User talk:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For\|talk]]) 00:17, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:04, 9 September 2025
Line 62:		Line 62:
	::::::Re "''Additionally: has anyone else appreciated…,"'' people on the (notional) tape measure forums '''can't stop talking about this'''! With stories about the children or apprentices who "fix" the problem leading to non-stopped cursing by the storyteller, &c, &c. Was that supposed to be a rhetorical question? Not sure why this is topical here, though. [[User:JohnHawkinson\|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson\|talk]]) 13:09, 9 September 2025 (UTC)		::::::Re "''Additionally: has anyone else appreciated…,"'' people on the (notional) tape measure forums '''can't stop talking about this'''! With stories about the children or apprentices who "fix" the problem leading to non-stopped cursing by the storyteller, &c, &c. Was that supposed to be a rhetorical question? Not sure why this is topical here, though. [[User:JohnHawkinson\|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson\|talk]]) 13:09, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

−	More notes on nominal wood sizing - The nominal lengths of framing lumber are not adjusted, so a nominal 2"x4"x8' board is actually 1.5"x3.5"x8'. In fact they are often slightly oversize to allow for cutting to exact length. However, the nominal length and width for sheet goods like plywood are normally accurate although thickness may or may not be, with softwood sheet goods usually being around 1/4" thinner than stated and hardwood typically being accurate.	+	More notes on nominal wood sizing - The nominal lengths of framing lumber are not adjusted, so a nominal 2"x4"x8' board is actually 1.5"x3.5"x8'. In fact they are often slightly oversize to allow for cutting to exact length. However, the nominal length and width for sheet goods like plywood are normally accurate although thickness may or may not be, with softwood sheet goods usually being around 1/4" thinner than stated and hardwood typically being accurate. {{unsigned ip\|2600:1700:b39:3010:30e0:301c:3150:8abf\|18:17, 9 September 2025}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:17, 9 September 2025
Line 61:		Line 61:
	:::::Additionally: has anyone else appreciated that the 'hook head' of a metal tape-measure is ''loosely'' riveted to the steel tape, such that when measuring the external distance (the hook 'hooking' over one end of the long item, or the edge of a windowsill/frame/etc, in tension) it makes an accurate internal measure of the tape-end, but when measuring an internal distance (pushed up against the internal corner of the wall, or whatever, in slight compression) the end pushes into the tape so your 'zero' is the external limit of the hook-bend? Not precisely equivalent, especial on cheap and/or worn retracting tapes where the hook has lateral wobble/angling to it, but clearly intentional to lessen the worry about the hook-metal's thickness (16th″? Half-mil? Where's my micrometer, so that I may measure my measuring tape's actual dimensions?!), even if it's usually barely significant a distinction when used over (in my current case) a 9′+ tape (at least 2.80 m, but I feel its spring complaining, so not trying for the full three metres, or possibly ten feet or more, just for fun!). And the tape-body is marked with graduations, too ("METRICmeters"{{asic}} on one side, "Non-METRICinches"(!) on the other) so I can add to the 'visible tape' the correct suplementary length of 'unexposed' tape still within the casing. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.238.27\|82.132.238.27]] 11:58, 9 September 2025 (UTC)		:::::Additionally: has anyone else appreciated that the 'hook head' of a metal tape-measure is ''loosely'' riveted to the steel tape, such that when measuring the external distance (the hook 'hooking' over one end of the long item, or the edge of a windowsill/frame/etc, in tension) it makes an accurate internal measure of the tape-end, but when measuring an internal distance (pushed up against the internal corner of the wall, or whatever, in slight compression) the end pushes into the tape so your 'zero' is the external limit of the hook-bend? Not precisely equivalent, especial on cheap and/or worn retracting tapes where the hook has lateral wobble/angling to it, but clearly intentional to lessen the worry about the hook-metal's thickness (16th″? Half-mil? Where's my micrometer, so that I may measure my measuring tape's actual dimensions?!), even if it's usually barely significant a distinction when used over (in my current case) a 9′+ tape (at least 2.80 m, but I feel its spring complaining, so not trying for the full three metres, or possibly ten feet or more, just for fun!). And the tape-body is marked with graduations, too ("METRICmeters"{{asic}} on one side, "Non-METRICinches"(!) on the other) so I can add to the 'visible tape' the correct suplementary length of 'unexposed' tape still within the casing. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.238.27\|82.132.238.27]] 11:58, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
	::::::Re "''Additionally: has anyone else appreciated…,"'' people on the (notional) tape measure forums '''can't stop talking about this'''! With stories about the children or apprentices who "fix" the problem leading to non-stopped cursing by the storyteller, &c, &c. Was that supposed to be a rhetorical question? Not sure why this is topical here, though. [[User:JohnHawkinson\|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson\|talk]]) 13:09, 9 September 2025 (UTC)		::::::Re "''Additionally: has anyone else appreciated…,"'' people on the (notional) tape measure forums '''can't stop talking about this'''! With stories about the children or apprentices who "fix" the problem leading to non-stopped cursing by the storyteller, &c, &c. Was that supposed to be a rhetorical question? Not sure why this is topical here, though. [[User:JohnHawkinson\|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson\|talk]]) 13:09, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
		+
		+	More notes on nominal wood sizing - The nominal lengths of framing lumber are not adjusted, so a nominal 2"x4"x8' board is actually 1.5"x3.5"x8'. In fact they are often slightly oversize to allow for cutting to exact length. However, the nominal length and width for sheet goods like plywood are normally accurate although thickness may or may not be, with softwood sheet goods usually being around 1/4" thinner than stated and hardwood typically being accurate.

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:09, 9 September 2025
Line 60:		Line 60:
	:::::That was, of course, the whole point of 2585 and 3065, only relevant to this comic's side-conversation about units. To which I'd add, maybe you can more easily read ⅛th-inches from an 'imperial' measuring tape, than the equivant not-exactly-3-centimetres from a metric one, but ⅕th-cm is easier than whatever that is in inches (2½-sixteenths, so five-thirty-twoths? ...just cross-comparing on my own measuring tape, which is top-half (feet-and-)inches with sixteenths, bottom half centimetres with tenths, in the British style). So it largely depends upon what scale works best/good enough for your use, and that you're used to. I, personally, still think of my ''own'' bodyweight in 'stone(s)', but am no longer quick enough to do the factor-14 conversion to relate that to what's often stated in US-lbs (rather than st+lbs, or "Xn''and a half'' stone"-ish, how we use them here) in common US usage. Nor have I ever really dwelt upon my weight in kg. So, unlike my height in feet-and-inches also being known in its reasonable dqyivalent of centimetres(/metres-point-two-decimals, give or take how unruly/untrimmed my hair currently is), I'd have to always do/accept a conversion (or just read off what the scales tell me, though I rarely bother to find out for my own 'fun'). Yet I usually bake/etc in grammes (or kilogrammes, as necessary), or ''perhaps'' ounces (three ounces of chocolate chips in one of my otherwise gramme-measured recipies, with perhaps 250g of this and 175g of that, for the rest of the mixture) just out of long-standing habit and the divisions being handier (ok, so basically that's basically 85g, but aiming for a 1 oz division (and slightly going over, if ''strictly necessary'' ;) ) is better than aiming half way between two 10nbsp;g ones on a scale that only otherwise has 25 g 'intersticial' graduations.		:::::That was, of course, the whole point of 2585 and 3065, only relevant to this comic's side-conversation about units. To which I'd add, maybe you can more easily read ⅛th-inches from an 'imperial' measuring tape, than the equivant not-exactly-3-centimetres from a metric one, but ⅕th-cm is easier than whatever that is in inches (2½-sixteenths, so five-thirty-twoths? ...just cross-comparing on my own measuring tape, which is top-half (feet-and-)inches with sixteenths, bottom half centimetres with tenths, in the British style). So it largely depends upon what scale works best/good enough for your use, and that you're used to. I, personally, still think of my ''own'' bodyweight in 'stone(s)', but am no longer quick enough to do the factor-14 conversion to relate that to what's often stated in US-lbs (rather than st+lbs, or "Xn''and a half'' stone"-ish, how we use them here) in common US usage. Nor have I ever really dwelt upon my weight in kg. So, unlike my height in feet-and-inches also being known in its reasonable dqyivalent of centimetres(/metres-point-two-decimals, give or take how unruly/untrimmed my hair currently is), I'd have to always do/accept a conversion (or just read off what the scales tell me, though I rarely bother to find out for my own 'fun'). Yet I usually bake/etc in grammes (or kilogrammes, as necessary), or ''perhaps'' ounces (three ounces of chocolate chips in one of my otherwise gramme-measured recipies, with perhaps 250g of this and 175g of that, for the rest of the mixture) just out of long-standing habit and the divisions being handier (ok, so basically that's basically 85g, but aiming for a 1 oz division (and slightly going over, if ''strictly necessary'' ;) ) is better than aiming half way between two 10nbsp;g ones on a scale that only otherwise has 25 g 'intersticial' graduations.
	:::::Additionally: has anyone else appreciated that the 'hook head' of a metal tape-measure is ''loosely'' riveted to the steel tape, such that when measuring the external distance (the hook 'hooking' over one end of the long item, or the edge of a windowsill/frame/etc, in tension) it makes an accurate internal measure of the tape-end, but when measuring an internal distance (pushed up against the internal corner of the wall, or whatever, in slight compression) the end pushes into the tape so your 'zero' is the external limit of the hook-bend? Not precisely equivalent, especial on cheap and/or worn retracting tapes where the hook has lateral wobble/angling to it, but clearly intentional to lessen the worry about the hook-metal's thickness (16th″? Half-mil? Where's my micrometer, so that I may measure my measuring tape's actual dimensions?!), even if it's usually barely significant a distinction when used over (in my current case) a 9′+ tape (at least 2.80 m, but I feel its spring complaining, so not trying for the full three metres, or possibly ten feet or more, just for fun!). And the tape-body is marked with graduations, too ("METRICmeters"{{asic}} on one side, "Non-METRICinches"(!) on the other) so I can add to the 'visible tape' the correct suplementary length of 'unexposed' tape still within the casing. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.238.27\|82.132.238.27]] 11:58, 9 September 2025 (UTC)		:::::Additionally: has anyone else appreciated that the 'hook head' of a metal tape-measure is ''loosely'' riveted to the steel tape, such that when measuring the external distance (the hook 'hooking' over one end of the long item, or the edge of a windowsill/frame/etc, in tension) it makes an accurate internal measure of the tape-end, but when measuring an internal distance (pushed up against the internal corner of the wall, or whatever, in slight compression) the end pushes into the tape so your 'zero' is the external limit of the hook-bend? Not precisely equivalent, especial on cheap and/or worn retracting tapes where the hook has lateral wobble/angling to it, but clearly intentional to lessen the worry about the hook-metal's thickness (16th″? Half-mil? Where's my micrometer, so that I may measure my measuring tape's actual dimensions?!), even if it's usually barely significant a distinction when used over (in my current case) a 9′+ tape (at least 2.80 m, but I feel its spring complaining, so not trying for the full three metres, or possibly ten feet or more, just for fun!). And the tape-body is marked with graduations, too ("METRICmeters"{{asic}} on one side, "Non-METRICinches"(!) on the other) so I can add to the 'visible tape' the correct suplementary length of 'unexposed' tape still within the casing. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.238.27\|82.132.238.27]] 11:58, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
		+	::::::Re "''Additionally: has anyone else appreciated…,"'' people on the (notional) tape measure forums '''can't stop talking about this'''! With stories about the children or apprentices who "fix" the problem leading to non-stopped cursing by the storyteller, &c, &c. Was that supposed to be a rhetorical question? Not sure why this is topical here, though. [[User:JohnHawkinson\|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson\|talk]]) 13:09, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:58, 9 September 2025
Line 53:		Line 53:
	:::Of course, American recipes get round this problem by measuring things by volume, using a standard cup size.--[[Special:Contributions/86.163.160.215\|86.163.160.215]] 11:15, 9 September 2025 (UTC)		:::Of course, American recipes get round this problem by measuring things by volume, using a standard cup size.--[[Special:Contributions/86.163.160.215\|86.163.160.215]] 11:15, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

−	::::See Technology Connection's latest video where he goes through a ridiculous series of imperial conversions to get from 192g of water to "about 0.2L".	+	::::See Technology Connection's latest video where he goes through a ridiculous series of imperial conversions to get from 192g of water to "about 0.2L". {{unsigned ip\|80.189.2.17\|23:49, 8 September 2025}}
		+	:::::This is, of course, already covered by [[2585: Rounding]] and [[3065: Square Units]], in which a value of [exactly?] X <unitOne>s is described as [roughly?] Y <unitTwo>s ''then'' the premise becomes that it's [exactly!] Y <unitTwo>s or [roughly?] Z <unitThree>s, etc (including immediately/eventually back to X′ <unitOne>s, where X′≠X, and it may even be doubtful if X′≈X to a useful degree).
		+	:::::Conversely, where the conversion ratio is exact and rational (especially ''decimally'' rational, yet may have {{w\|International yard and pound\|a number of significant digits}} actual precision may get lost by there being an unknown/unstated/misstated exactitude (and the inverse of any rational number is often (decimally!-)irrational/even more unweildy).
		+	:::::This is not to say that 192g of water (especially if overprecise, for the circumstances) cannot be usefully summarised as "about 0.2L", even without transitioning through non-metric scales or convolutions. (How many pounds weight? ...that means a given amount of pounds force, in a given situation. ...that could be expressed as newtons. Which, in a particular setup conveys a given pressure as of <blah> atmospheres... The number of moles of a gaseous substance that would apply that same degree of pressure at a given temperature is... and ''eventually'' that's then related back again to a volume of water under STP.) But you really need to know where (and how much of) the fuzziness crept in along the way.
		+	:::::The usual culprit is when information is translated between audiences. A scientific paper mentions a phenomenon as a large number of kilogrammes (SI), ''maybe already with an 'errorbar'/rounding to that''. Some more public article relates that as "N [thousand/million/etc, additionally rounded?] kg" but also in (rounded) tons. Long or short tons, maybe. Perhaps tonnes, for the least problematic conversion! That, though, then gets taken up and reprinted elsewhere again, intermediate journalist/subeditor now reporting the ton(ne)s, but explaining how many pounds-weight that is (or numbers of elephants/jumbo-jets/Sydney Harbour Bridges that is, by some look-up value that might itself be a vague average or estimate), more or less. Picked up by someone who likes the latter value, but feels the need to state (their own calculation of) what the SI-compatible units would be... YGTI.
		+	:::::That was, of course, the whole point of 2585 and 3065, only relevant to this comic's side-conversation about units. To which I'd add, maybe you can more easily read ⅛th-inches from an 'imperial' measuring tape, than the equivant not-exactly-3-centimetres from a metric one, but ⅕th-cm is easier than whatever that is in inches (2½-sixteenths, so five-thirty-twoths? ...just cross-comparing on my own measuring tape, which is top-half (feet-and-)inches with sixteenths, bottom half centimetres with tenths, in the British style). So it largely depends upon what scale works best/good enough for your use, and that you're used to. I, personally, still think of my ''own'' bodyweight in 'stone(s)', but am no longer quick enough to do the factor-14 conversion to relate that to what's often stated in US-lbs (rather than st+lbs, or "Xn''and a half'' stone"-ish, how we use them here) in common US usage. Nor have I ever really dwelt upon my weight in kg. So, unlike my height in feet-and-inches also being known in its reasonable dqyivalent of centimetres(/metres-point-two-decimals, give or take how unruly/untrimmed my hair currently is), I'd have to always do/accept a conversion (or just read off what the scales tell me, though I rarely bother to find out for my own 'fun'). Yet I usually bake/etc in grammes (or kilogrammes, as necessary), or ''perhaps'' ounces (three ounces of chocolate chips in one of my otherwise gramme-measured recipies, with perhaps 250g of this and 175g of that, for the rest of the mixture) just out of long-standing habit and the divisions being handier (ok, so basically that's basically 85g, but aiming for a 1 oz division (and slightly going over, if ''strictly necessary'' ;) ) is better than aiming half way between two 10nbsp;g ones on a scale that only otherwise has 25 g 'intersticial' graduations.
		+	:::::Additionally: has anyone else appreciated that the 'hook head' of a metal tape-measure is ''loosely'' riveted to the steel tape, such that when measuring the external distance (the hook 'hooking' over one end of the long item, or the edge of a windowsill/frame/etc, in tension) it makes an accurate internal measure of the tape-end, but when measuring an internal distance (pushed up against the internal corner of the wall, or whatever, in slight compression) the end pushes into the tape so your 'zero' is the external limit of the hook-bend? Not precisely equivalent, especial on cheap and/or worn retracting tapes where the hook has lateral wobble/angling to it, but clearly intentional to lessen the worry about the hook-metal's thickness (16th″? Half-mil? Where's my micrometer, so that I may measure my measuring tape's actual dimensions?!), even if it's usually barely significant a distinction when used over (in my current case) a 9′+ tape (at least 2.80 m, but I feel its spring complaining, so not trying for the full three metres, or possibly ten feet or more, just for fun!). And the tape-body is marked with graduations, too ("METRICmeters"{{asic}} on one side, "Non-METRICinches"(!) on the other) so I can add to the 'visible tape' the correct suplementary length of 'unexposed' tape still within the casing. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.238.27\|82.132.238.27]] 11:58, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:15, 9 September 2025
Line 50:		Line 50:

	:::I know both. I can use both. I started out with imperial. But I choose to use metric, because metric is so very obviously superior. [[User:Yorkshire Pudding\|Yorkshire Pudding]] ([[User talk:Yorkshire Pudding\|talk]]) 15:17, 8 September 2025 (UTC)		:::I know both. I can use both. I started out with imperial. But I choose to use metric, because metric is so very obviously superior. [[User:Yorkshire Pudding\|Yorkshire Pudding]] ([[User talk:Yorkshire Pudding\|talk]]) 15:17, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
		+
		+	:::Of course, American recipes get round this problem by measuring things by volume, using a standard cup size.--[[Special:Contributions/86.163.160.215\|86.163.160.215]] 11:15, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

	::::See Technology Connection's latest video where he goes through a ridiculous series of imperial conversions to get from 192g of water to "about 0.2L".		::::See Technology Connection's latest video where he goes through a ridiculous series of imperial conversions to get from 192g of water to "about 0.2L".

@@ Line 40: / Line 40: @@
 :Adopt the metric system, but then sell milk in 568ml bottles, because that's a pint, and milk inherently belongs in pints, so people have to have that much milk as a unit. Sell syrup and treacle in 454g and 907g cans, so 1lb and 2lb cans of sugary stuff can still exist. Nobody would be able to cope with 400g, 450g, 500g, 900g or 1kg! Keep selling beer and cider in pints, but change spirits to 25ml or 35ml (which you choose is up to you as a licensed bar) from 1/6 of a gill (or 1/5 of a gill in Scotland). Sell fuel in litres, but advertise vehicle fuel consumption in miles per gallon. [[User:Yorkshire Pudding|Yorkshire Pudding]] ([[User talk:Yorkshire Pudding|talk]]) 22:59, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
 :I know, obviously not {{wiktionary|the full shilling}}! [[Special:Contributions/92.17.62.87|92.17.62.87]] 23:16, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
 ::I will venture the hypothesis that folk in this conversation are not cooks. It's in the kitchen that the difficulties with the metric system are most frequently encountered. Many Imperial measures are factors of two; it's easy and intuitive to double something or halve something and have the result make sense, as several kitchen veterans have told me over the years, with varying degrees of irritation. A pound (16 ounces), half a pound (8), a quarter pound (4), yada. Too many halvings in the metric system, and you're into fussy decimals. Moreover, if the recipe calls for a pound of butter, and you feed it half a kilogram, thinking that's the metric equivalent and close enough, the biscuits/cookies ain't gonna come out the same, and folk are gonna come after you. I learned years ago to check the cup measure carefully to see if it was graded in ounces or milliliters, and whether the recipe it was supposed to be serving came from Yankeeland or Godzone. Or else. The metric system may be <em>logically</em> superior, but may not be <em>practically</em> superior in all contexts. It might be well to seek reasons, other than the usual dismissive ones, for why, for example, {{w|https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrication_in_Canada#Metrication_stalled|Canada took 15 years to fail to fully convert to the metric system}}.[[Special:Contributions/2605:59C8:160:DB08:F102:9332:DCBD:89C6|2605:59C8:160:DB08:F102:9332:DCBD:89C6]] 03:10, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 This reminds me of when I changed my friend’s text replacements to be slightly misspelled whenever she tried to type a common word in college. She was getting a degree in linguistics and it was SO FUNNY 《プロキシ》(XKCD中毒者) 13:29, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
 :She should have claimed that she was undertaking "applied linguistics" and investigating how to create a deliberate {{w|language change}}! [[Special:Contributions/92.17.62.87|92.17.62.87]] 20:23, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
 I was told (and maybe this is wrong), that the dimensions are intended to represent the final thickness of a wall when drywall (usually 0.5" thick) is attached to the studs.   [[User:Shamino|Shamino]] ([[User talk:Shamino|talk]]) 20:58, 6 September 2025 (UTC)