JKBenton
22144
390
19
May 27, 2025 11:18 AM
JKBenton
22144
390
19
VodkaReindeer
It probably got the idea from watching cameramen defeat skibidi toilet.
TheShoggothOfMosquitoCreek
Call me a raging misanthropist, but I don't see how ChatGPT could possibly run the planet any worse.
OceansRust
Having a Toddler give my Tower a sippy, I know this to be true! Miss that kid...
therandombagofmeat
Hell, I am 50 and spill things like a 4 year old
defideli
Ditto, luckily keyboard usually catches most of them
zeacorzeppelin10
Having seen toddlers with no self-preservation around dogs that weigh 3x as much as them and the parents get mad when the dog reacts always bothers me
Callipygius
I get mad at my kid for fucking with my dog, like dude do not do that or she will bite you, even though she's never bitten anyone before. Fortunately she's smart and will just walk away
NorrinxRadd
The 4 year old shouldn't be drinking the Dew
vericon151
Especially if he keeps spilling it.
sometimesifeellikeanut
You do if you intend to weaponize them
mercyPandaRunner
It's too much sugar for them. That's why i give my kids only beer.
NorrinxRadd
Please, please, kids should only drink Guinness, it's good for them.
DidaChikDumaChum
Kids don't need the extra calories in beer. That's why I give mine straight up vodka
michiyl
18booma
I don't wanna bring down the mood, so don't read further if you're having a good chuckle or day .................................................................................. Now having said that, Israel has been using AI in its genocide of children, and they've killed nearly 20,000 kids at this point.
Omnimorph2112
Measuring fluids in ounces is just awful. Save me, metric system!
JohnEdwa
It's either 28.41 mL, 29.57mL or 30mL, depending on if it's an imperial, us customary, or us food labelling fluid ounce, so that 20 us fluid ounce drink has a nutritional label that uses a *different* fluid ounce, for simplicity!
Easy!
080080
jethroismaxbaer5772
No matter the method, I will probably get it wrong. That's why I have to be supervised if I cook.
FinancialRavioli
the arguments that happen over the confusion of volumetric ounces and weight ounces are hilarious.
especially people that think you're not allowed to use a liquid cup to measure dry ingredients and vice versa.
Neednoggle
20 fl.oz ≈ 590 ml
Goldensands
But how many lips could that contain if we counted it in feet
kleinkaasje
That’s quite a lot of sugary drink for a four year old
kleinkaasje
For anyone, really
SidonisAntares
1 fl oz ≈ 30 ml, unless you’re baking desserts this will work for most anything even scaled up.
RealRedbeard
Or 3 dl as most would say since it's a lot easier. :) (Deciliter for our american friends.)
SidonisAntares
I can see where that would be common outside the US, but most measuring items over here, if they’re dual marked then the metric is in grams or milliliters
massdefect3
Most would definitely not say that because 3 dL is 300 mL; 3 cL would be 30 mL. In my area (Canada), SI prefixes that aren’t powers of 10^3 aren’t common in everyday parlance aside from maybe hectares, hectoPascals, and centimetres, though I grant that they may be very common elsewhere.
MrWobblyHead
Only if you're on the US
1 fl oz Imperial = 28.41 mL
1 fl oz US = 29.57 mL
SidonisAntares
Still almost 30ml either way, which again will work for anything less exacting than the precision measurements required for pastries, desserts, etc. That’s why I used ≈ and not =
SidonisAntares
For example, if someone is in an opposite measurement area and they want 8 fl oz ≈ 240ml for a basic recipe, they’ll be fine.
pgdave
weak
AllTheGoodOnesWereGone
That's exactly what an AI would say. We're going back to the old British money system in self defense.
igglebotato
Cowrie shells
jqubed
Pounds, shillings, pennies?
igglebotato
10d/6
whatever the hell that means
jqubed
I dunno, I’ve never played Dungeons & Dragons
jethroismaxbaer5772
I think you mean 10p/6? That would be 10 pounds, 6... shillings? Pence? Fucked if I know.
igglebotato
LOL, I think I crossed 10/6 on the Mad Hatter's hat with D&D dice terminology
NaughtButOne
Both systems are equally arbitrary. It's just what you're familiar with. 590mL is equally nonsensical as 20fl.oz.
MrWobblyHead
There are two different systems, so it's even more nonsensical.
590mL = 19.95 fl oz US
590mL = 20.77 fl oz Imperial
Fentex
No, they're not. Not since about 2016 when the last SI unit was pinned to an observable and measurable physical property of nature. And apart from that the inherent sanity of the interconnection of simple standards in the metric system that allows one to calculate values previously unknown to one by extrapolation is unavailable to imperial crap. They are fundamentally different in their concepts - and metric is absolutely superior.
NaughtButOne
I didn't say they're equally useful. But even those "SI" metric units are determined by working backwards from a desired outcome. I could define a furlong with 'observable and measurable physical properties'. Hell, we define seconds and minutes according to the vibration of Cesium, but 'seconds' and 'minutes' are completely meaningless units outside of our tiny, little human frame of reference. That's what I mean by arbitrary - their definition has no relevance to an objective observer.
Tengenstein
Nope SI units are based off empirical constants. You could wipe out all knowledge of SI units and eventually reinvent them at the same value from things like the speed of light or the boltzmann constant. You obliterate something arbitrary like the stone or the ounce or the cubit and no one is going to quite sure exactly what they were
NaughtButOne
They *use* constants, but the math was done backwards to reach the desired result. A "meter" is the distance light travels in 1 / 299792458 seconds. Why not 1 / 300000000 seconds? Because the formula has to resolve to give you the result of the meter - which *already existed*. If society collapses to the point that no one can recall what "a pound" is, the odds are slim we'll remember the exact fraction to define a meter. The formula has *become* the artifact.
Tengenstein
Yes but no, the meter is defined by the speed of light. which is actually goverend by distance travelled over a certain time. Light isn't going to change how fast it travels it's something of a constant, so if you have soemthing in nature that happens at a constant. it's empirically based, not arbitray, so yes the "formula" might be an artifact, but for no SI derived units, it could be anything.
NaughtButOne
You've missed what I said. The formula uses the speed of light over a given TIME, and that TIME number was specifically assigned so that [the distance light travels] would equal 1 meter. It's reproducible, and less prone to miscalculation, but it's just as arbitrary.
It SOUNDS scientific and fancy because now we're using the [speed of light], but saying "... over 299792458ths of a second" is no different than something like "100 paces of a Roman legionary".
pixelsnader
No. In both systems the base unit size is arbitrary, sure. But in imperial each unit-to-unit ratio is arbitrary, too, while metric is systematic.
NaughtButOne
Difference of opinion. To me, if the foundational unit is arbitrary, the entire system is arbitrary. Using 10 to multiply or divide your units is certainly more useful, but if you obliterate knowledge of how to define that base unit, both systems fall apart and are therefore equal to me.
pixelsnader
Yes. Both are arbitrary, but one is MORE arbitrary than the other.
Similar to how there are several kinds of infinity, and some are more infinite than others. There are infinite integers. There are 2x infinite integers if you include negatives. There are infinite real numbers between 0 and 1, and 1 and 2, etc, so there are infinite² real numbers.
Same goes for arbitrarity of metric vs imperial.
NaughtButOne
Correct. I'm not making the argument that they're ... equally equal (?). Just that they're both made up. I use metric, but I dislike when people use a system of weights and measures of all things to feign superiority over others online. Metric is more intuitive and (imo) easier to grasp, but feet and inches work just fine for a person who was raised in it.
Majorbobbicus
Arbitrary, yes. Nonsensical, no.
NaughtButOne
Objectively nonsense. It's only when you understand all the references that it makes sense, at which point the same thing can be said of imperial. "One kilometer is one-thousand meters" makes just as much sense as "one mile is eight furlongs", the only difference is one's numbers are easier to remember and parse.
Majorbobbicus
We understand that they are all arbitrary. The thing that makes metric less nonsensical than imperial is not lower arbitrariness, it's the consistency. Everything is in base 10. If everything in imperial was base 8, or base 12, or even base 19 or 37, then you'd have an argument here. It isn't though, it's all over the fucking place, and so you don't.
NaughtButOne
Everything is in base 10... *after* you have defined the meter, which is based on a reference frame that's just as objectively meaningless as using a soldier's footstep. That means the system is easier to work with, it's more *efficient*, but the base unit is nonsense, and multiplying nonsense by 10 is still nonsense.
Badprenup
Yeah... Not really. The metric system is built on a consistent set of measurements that are easily able to scale up or down by factors of 10, where imperial measurements are a hodge-podge of different systems thrown together over hundreds of years.
NaughtButOne
Scaling on base-10 is great and it's definitely more intuitive and efficient, but it's still completely manufactured and meaningless. Whether I say "three feet" or "one meter", I'm talking about the same(ish) amount of distance. If you went back in time, a lot of societies used base-12 numbering, and now your metric system looks just as asinine as imperial does today.
Goldensands
... look at your hands for me for a second. Then know yourself for the massive idiot your being, once you're doing counting your fking fingers.
NaughtButOne
... what? I don't need my fingers to count to ten, I'm not American. That's not the point. The system's ease-of-use has nothing to do with how arbitrarily its fundamental values are.
SidonisAntares
I understand what you’re trying to say, but comparing two different base-# systems to each other compared to imperial isn’t the same. A base system is consistent with the number being used as the base, imperial is all over the damn place because each different measurement nomenclature was from wildly different sources of distance, weight, or volume, usually due to local usages that changed based on what those in charge liked rather than as a unified standard.
SidonisAntares
For example, mile originates from the Romans for mil (amusingly enough), but it’s meaning was 1,000 paces? Whose paces? Yet later on it was determined that a mile was to be ~5,000 feet, because it was roughly 8 furlong, and a furlong was 40 rods, which was 220 yards…
youreathing
How do you figure the metric system is "arbitrary?"
Halfwise
Each one has its benefits. Imperial is best for "on-the-fly" calculations. If your tablespoon is missing, knowing that 3 teaspoons equals 1 tablespoon allows for quick measuring without needing another tablespoon. Metric is great for trying to get the exact same results every time, and converting up and down is easy in factors of 10. But if your scale breaks... you are screwed. The key point to both of these benefits is *conversion*. If you are not converting, both are arbitrary.
Halfwise
Both systems are human made... we determined their value and worth. Without comparison, without context, without possibility for conversion, they ARE arbitrary... and that bottle may as well be filled with 8.7 nanners of liquid.
NaughtButOne
Because numbers aren't real. We made them up. A meter is just as arbitrary as a foot; it used to be based on some fraction of the distance between Paris and ... Egypt, I think? Every revision since then is based on that first nonsensical one. What's a kilogram? Well it's a liter of water... at a specific place on the Earth, because gravity changes. Okay well what's a liter? It's one cubic decimeter... which brings us back to that arbitrary distance from Paris.
youreathing
A metre is a fraction of the distance b/w the North Pole and the Equator. All of the units were chosen based on phenomena that happen in nature, because they are consistently reproduceable - the opposite of arbitrary. I'm not sure you're clear on what arbitrary means. As for "numbers aren't real..." ... alright.
NaughtButOne
The Earth isn't a perfect sphere. So where exactly are you drawing the line? What if it's a warm day and the ocean is 2mm higher today than it was yesterday? There's a lot of ocean. That's gonna throw off your measurement. "Nature" is not an authority. Imagine you meet an alien on Uranus. How do you explain what a meter is, without their knowing what "Earth" is? "Well it's so-and-so atoms of..." except "so-and-so" traces back to that first measurement. That's what arbitrary means.
LeMegachonk
Because it is. For example, all length/distance measurements in metric are based on the meter, which since 1983 is defined as the distance traveled by light in vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second. Why not 1/300,000,000 of a second? Because the length of the meter had already been established long before 1983, and this definition was invented to match what was already universally agreed upon. It's very... precise, but it's still 100% arbitrary.
youreathing
I think you may be confusing "arbitrary" with... something else. These measurements were chosen so as to be reproduceable and to eliminate ambiguity. It used to be the case that a "foot" was based on the length of a King's literal foot. And that would change when the King changed. The metric system gets rid of all of that.
LeMegachonk
I used arbitrary correctly. The meter was invented in 1791 and defined as one then millionth of the quadrant of the Earth's circumference from the equator to the North Pole running through Paris. They could have defined it any other way and ended up with something a bit (or a lot) longer or shorter, and the metric system would still work exactly the same way. The meter means NOTHING in and of itself, its entire meaning derives only from how it is externally defined. That's why it's arbitrary.
acrabb3
It's arbitrary in that there's no reason for it to be specifically that length. Some alien civilization could invent a measurement system that's just as fixed and logical, but their "meter" is 7/9 of ours.