ooli3@sopuli.xyz to Funny@sh.itjust.works · 2 days agotranslated in americani.redd.itimagemessage-square87fedilinkarrow-up1947arrow-down110
arrow-up1937arrow-down1imagetranslated in americani.redd.itooli3@sopuli.xyz to Funny@sh.itjust.works · 2 days agomessage-square87fedilink
minus-squareGamingChairModel@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up3·1 day ago There are lots of benefits to using base 12 for measurements. 12 is better than 10, I’ll give you that. But 100 is better than 144, and 1000 is way better than 1728. And that doesn’t even get to 0.1 versus 1/12, or 0.01 versus 1/144. So 12 might be a better standalone number, but it’s a terrible base to work in.
minus-squaredefinitemaybe@lemmy.calinkfedilinkarrow-up1·12 hours agoBut 144 is better than 100, for the exact same reason that 12 is better than 10? There’s a reason measured angles go to 360ths, then subdivided by 60 or even by 60 again. 100 is as terrible a base as 10, and you run into it all the time if you’re designing something in metric; you can’t divide by 3 evenly.
12 is better than 10, I’ll give you that. But 100 is better than 144, and 1000 is way better than 1728.
And that doesn’t even get to 0.1 versus 1/12, or 0.01 versus 1/144.
So 12 might be a better standalone number, but it’s a terrible base to work in.
But 144 is better than 100, for the exact same reason that 12 is better than 10?
There’s a reason measured angles go to 360ths, then subdivided by 60 or even by 60 again.
100 is as terrible a base as 10, and you run into it all the time if you’re designing something in metric; you can’t divide by 3 evenly.