# Sooo any chance of including metres in this one?

### Prerelease Discussion

 101 to 150 of 336 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

doomman47 wrote:
DarkPhoenixx wrote:
doomman47 wrote:
DarkPhoenixx wrote:
Funny, i use metric system IRL, yet in fantasy system like pathfinder using pints/feet/pounds feels medieval so i prefer that. I guess as an option for some people it would be beneficial.
except people didn't measure like that back then, they measured in barley grains and how far an ox could move in a day of plowing
Pound is like 7k barley grains, is it not? And inch is length of a finger or so.
no idea they used barley grains for distance

or had so short fingers ...

Wheldrake wrote:

When I was in high school, in Iowa, in the 70s, we learnt all about the metric system, and the teachers told us that in the next few years, everybody in the US would be switching to metric. Obviously that never happened.

Now I live in France, and all the PF games use 1.5m squares. Anytime I use my English-language PF books, I have to convert units from meters, to squares, and back to feet, or vice-versa. All the weights are in kg, but they are converted from pounds at 1 lb = 0.5 kg. Again, not really that difficult.

There's no reason for PF2.0 books to include measurements in metric. The French publisher of PF, Black Book Editions, publishes everything with 5' = 1.5m and 1 lb = 0.5 kg. And again, conversions aren't really that difficult. 9m movement speed is 6 squares, is 30'. No big deal.

So this is really a non issue for folks who live in metric land.

Yep, we're smart:-)

No, seriously - it's fine as it is. I'd hate to see space wasted (and it would be a LOT of space!) which could be put to better use.

Honestly, when it comes to one of the most common uses of temperature (weather) Farenheit makes the most sense. It makes little sense to talk about -10°C as to me, compared to 14°F. Farenheit doesn't go negative until you reach (fairly unreasonably) cold temperatures. It also has more granularity without having to use decimal places 2 degrees F ~= 1 degree C.

Now, for anything scientific we should all be using Kelvin. But that's a whole separate matter.

Wheldrake wrote:
The Sideromancer wrote:
But what about English-speaking Metric land?
I think Brits and Canadians and Australians all still have a pretty clear idea of what feet and pounds are, and have no problem using those measurements. Alternatively, they could use the 5' = 1.5m and 1 lb = 0.5kg, just like the French. But I suspect they don't have alternate publishers for Paizo material, and will simply use the feet and pounds in the PF books.

Ummm... Not in Australia.

Go to a butcher, ask for a pound of mince. You'll get a blank look.

Trying to visualise more than six feet is problematic at best.

And don't get me started on trying to work out the relationship between feet and miles.

since 14°F is still above Zero I have to assume it is still warm, something around early spring temperatures.

Mekkis wrote:
Wheldrake wrote:
The Sideromancer wrote:
But what about English-speaking Metric land?
I think Brits and Canadians and Australians all still have a pretty clear idea of what feet and pounds are, and have no problem using those measurements. Alternatively, they could use the 5' = 1.5m and 1 lb = 0.5kg, just like the French. But I suspect they don't have alternate publishers for Paizo material, and will simply use the feet and pounds in the PF books.

Ummm... Not in Australia.

Go to a butcher, ask for a pound of mince. You'll get a blank look.

Trying to visualise more than six feet is problematic at best.

And don't get me started on trying to work out the relationship between feet and miles.

A mile is 1.6 kilometers. Make it 1.5 in your head and you have a pretty good idea.

Mekkis wrote:
Wheldrake wrote:
The Sideromancer wrote:
But what about English-speaking Metric land?
I think Brits and Canadians and Australians all still have a pretty clear idea of what feet and pounds are, and have no problem using those measurements. Alternatively, they could use the 5' = 1.5m and 1 lb = 0.5kg, just like the French. But I suspect they don't have alternate publishers for Paizo material, and will simply use the feet and pounds in the PF books.

Ummm... Not in Australia.

Go to a butcher, ask for a pound of mince. You'll get a blank look.

Trying to visualise more than six feet is problematic at best.

And don't get me started on trying to work out the relationship between feet and miles.

I can only think of one thing in Australia where inches, feet and yards are a measurement in frequent use. I suspect you can visualise very well 10 feet or 66 feet, because those are the dimensions of a cricket pitch. Half the length of a cricket pitch is therefore a common move distance, as well as being the short range of a javelin. The full cricket pitch is shortbow range.

Feet and inches is a lot easier to work in than metres. I don't really understand why anyone would want to work in metres.

Ten feet is ballpark four steps of an average sized man.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.

I propose PF2 switch over to the FFF measures standard.

Furlong - (220 yards/ 201.2 m)
Firkin - (90 lb / 40.8 kg)
Fortnight - (14 days)

An average male human is around 9 milifurongs tall, weighs 1.7 firkins, and is middle aged at 9.1 hectofortnights.

 2 people marked this as a favorite.
Eryx_UK wrote:
Feet and inches is a lot easier to work in than metres. I don't really understand why anyone would want to work in metres.

Probably for the same reason humanity is used to calculate within the decimal system. I mean, I can calculate within the binary system quite fine. Most people cannot.

And if you think about it, as long as you don't set a fixed metric value to it, an inch or a foot is a quite unexact measure. I mean what feet are we talking about? Because that could make a huge difference, as soon as we're talking about longer distances.

This said, I don't find it very hard to convert feet to metres on the fly, so I've never had any problems visulaizing distances to my players.

WormysQueue wrote:

And if you think about it, as long as you don't set a fixed metric value to it, an inch or a foot is a quite unexact measure. I mean what feet are we talking about? Because that could make a huge difference, as soon as we're talking about longer distances.

Do, do Europeans think measuring feet aren't a fixed set size? Do you think we're using our actual lower leg appendages and not a fixed, regulated, government standardized measure?

Cause that's the vibe you're throwing off right there.

 4 people marked this as a favorite.

By the way, a quick Kerri metric guide for temperatures:

30C is hot
20C is room temperature
10C is a bit brisk but not too bad. light jacket.
0C is freezing. Snow and ice possible.
-10C is cold. heavy jacket
-20C omg the inside of my nose froze .. so much hate..

Of course it is very, very subjective. For my husband it's like this:

30C - "*swearword* hot."
20C - "turn the damned temperature down"
10C - "finally"
0C - "sweet"
-10C - "perfect. wow, you're like 90% coat, kerri. lulz." (this is where he earns a glare)
-20C - "should I wear the light jacket? it's getting a bit nippy".
(those are actual quotes from him in those temperatures)

Coridan wrote:
Believe it or not, there's serious advantages to the Imperial system. It's a hell of a lot easier to eyeball certain measurements (for example, the foot is about the length of the average foot. The inch about a thumb's length, a yard is about a single walking pace). When precise measurements aren't required it's fantastic.

Um, speak for yourself. My foot is like just barely over 20cm long (I often have to go to the children's shoes section to find something that fits), and I doubt my stride is a whole yard. And a meter and a yard are the same in informal measuries, so the yard has no advantages anyways.

..and that's a small thumb. A quick google tells me that the typical man's thumb is actually more like 2.5 inches. Even my teensy tiny thumb is bigger than one inch. I think you might mean something else.

TiwazBlackhand wrote:
Do, do Europeans think measuring feet aren't a fixed set size? Do you think we're using our actual lower leg appendages and not a fixed, regulated, government standardized measure?

He was asking which "fixed", regulated, government standard you were talking about. There's been many definitions and standards of things like "feet" and "miles" over the years. The United States today actually has two different feet and mile measurements - USCS and USGS. These are actually defined in terms of SI units, by the way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot_(unit)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mile
..there's even a metric foot..

Ooh idea - Pathfinder could actually be using a different 'mile' than USCS...

Kerrilyn wrote:
..there's even a metric foot..

The metric foot seems like it would be much more useful if it were 1/3 meter instead of 30 cm. At 30 cm, there aren't an even number of metric feet in a meter.

To me, the biggest disadvantage of the metric system is there aren't as many ways to evenly subdivide things. It's great for dividing by 10s, not so great when you need other divisors.

I guess since feet and inches are so practical for a lot of things, they came up with "metric feet" and "metric inches" that are very close to the imperial counterpart.

Maybe that's the solution here. When people in metric countries read measurements in Pathfinder, they can simply assume metric feet.

Honestly thinking that if they don't have space for feet(meters) format, they could do that size comparison chart thing. Or at least have one opening in the book with silhouettes of all monsters in it in relative scale :D (still getting inspiration from Numenera bestiaries, they come with posters that have all the monsters scaled to each other)

Wow...it's warmer now, but I suppose I must live in a crazy area.

I think -15C to -20C is about normal for January temperature where I am at currently. Of course, where I'm at right now is also odd in that they never plow the roads. 2 feet of snow...awesome...everyone just drives around with the roads full of snow. You have to have a four wheel drive sometimes just to get to the store at times. It has to have something like three or four feet before they break the snow plows out. Even then, if it's the weekend...well...you are so out of luck...and school is still in session by the way...

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:

Loss of word count from having to print every measurement in two units: big.

Gain of having a bunch of Poles and Nordics happy to see metric units: small.

Suggestion: print all gameplay-relevant distances in 'tiles' or 'squares'. And then it doesn't really matter if a tile is a metre or a metre and a half.

Go with toes.

 4 people marked this as a favorite.
TiwazBlackhand wrote:

Do, do Europeans think measuring feet aren't a fixed set size? Do you think we're using our actual lower leg appendages and not a fixed, regulated, government standardized measure?

Ahm, no, that bolded part was my point exactly. In the modern world, you only can use feet, inches and yards because they have been defined exactly by metric values since 1959 (as wikipedia tells me). And before that, you had the problem I was talking about, that the actual length of a foot would very much depend on where and from whom it got used.

Keep in mind that I don't mind the U.S. using the imperial system. I just reacted to the claim that it's easier to use than the metric system, as I don't think it's true and the bigger part of planet earth has no problem using it at all.

 4 people marked this as a favorite.
Were-wraith wrote:
To me, the biggest disadvantage of the metric system is there aren't as many ways to evenly subdivide things. It's great for dividing by 10s, not so great when you need other divisors.

10 divides into 2, 5 integer-y wise, and 4 if you don't mind a single decimal place after the point. That's sufficient for most uses, and for others, well, there's calculators, fractions, and 100, 1000, 10000, etc scale. 1/3 of a meter too complicated? well, just divide it into 3 sections of 33cm (or 333mm) and ignore the remainder as it's prolly lost if you're cutting anyways.

12 divides into 6, 4, 3 and 2. That's nice, but if that's super important to you, you should really be using a 60-inch foot. 60 divides into 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 20 and 30, or everything that 12 does, plus many more. That's why time is .. sezi..whatever..decimal... weird..stuffs .. number base..

I guess since feet and inches are so practical for a lot of things, they came up with "metric feet" and "metric inches" that are very close to the imperial counterpart.

Were-wraith wrote:
Maybe that's the solution here. When people in metric countries read measurements in Pathfinder, they can simply assume metric feet.

The best thingy would be to use squares and time instead, and then have a localized conversion table. That's what we're mostly interested in anyways. Extending the spell ranges to cover more things as range bands would be good too.

Ex. the movement tables in the CRB would use squares for tactical and local (so for 30-feet peoples, walk would be 6, hustle 12, run x3 would be 18, and run x4 would be 24), and time conversion for the overland stuffs.

Distances on maps would be measured in hours or days - Town A is two days travel (at speed 6) to Castle B. At speed 12 (like a horse), that would be one day, or four days at speed 3 (like a small creature).

Then there would be the conversion table, for those times when you need to know:
1 square = 5 ft or 1.5m
1 hour's travel = 3 miles or 5 km.
1 day's travel = 24 miles or 40 km.

Just like how specific impulse is measured in seconds, which makes it common to both imperial and metric.

Besides, I don't care how much distance to the next town, I care about time. I don't have 8 miles of rations, I have 8 days of rations.

Were-wraith wrote:

To me, the biggest disadvantage of the metric system is there aren't as many ways to evenly subdivide things. It's great for dividing by 10s, not so great when you need other divisors.

We shouldn't have gone with a base 10 numbering system. Base 12 is superior. 10 is divisible by 1,2,5,10. 12 is divisible by 1,2,3,4,6,12. Then do a metric based on multiples of 12 instead of 10. The problem is base 10 is so ingrained that it's probably more trouble than it's worth to replace it as well as all measurements. Even our language of talking about numbers would need to be redone because it's base 10 thinking.

 5 people marked this as a favorite.

The real mistake was having only ten fingers in the first place. If we had twelve, not only would we be able to divide things by three, we could type faster. This would surely increase global productivity by 20%.

Matthew Downie wrote:
The real mistake was having only ten fingers in the first place. If we had twelve, not only would we be able to divide things by three, we could type faster. This would surely increase global productivity by 20%.

Indeed. And one of those extra digits could be a second thumb on the other side of the hand to increase versatility.

Doktor Weasel wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
The real mistake was having only ten fingers in the first place. If we had twelve, not only would we be able to divide things by three, we could type faster. This would surely increase global productivity by 20%.
Indeed. And one of those extra digits could be a second thumb on the other side of the hand to increase versatility.

Wouldn't that account for both? Unless you were thinking of dropping symmetry...

The Sideromancer wrote:
Doktor Weasel wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
The real mistake was having only ten fingers in the first place. If we had twelve, not only would we be able to divide things by three, we could type faster. This would surely increase global productivity by 20%.
Indeed. And one of those extra digits could be a second thumb on the other side of the hand to increase versatility.
Wouldn't that account for both? Unless you were thinking of dropping symmetry...

Yeah I was having a brain fart thinking of two extra fingers per hand for some reason. Time to sleep.

Reading through this has been fun. Thanks, people.

 RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

There is one legacy of base 12 in the modern world - time keeping. Notice that all the subdivisions of time are multiples of 12 - 2*12 = 24 hours in a day, 5*12 minutes in an hour and seconds in a minute. I think base 12 also factors into why there are 360(30*12) degrees in a circle. Thanks ancient Babylon!

Obviously we should switch to metric time, with 10 metric hours in a day and 100 metric minutes in each hour.

But yes, all the Imperial units are now actually just proportions of SI units. An inch is defined as 2.54 centimeters and all other Imperial lengths are based off that. And so forth. Interestingly, the meter itself is defined by the speed of light - how far light travels in a tiny fraction of a second, with the second being defined by atomic vibrations.

It was always fun teaching this stuff an day one of physics class.

ryric wrote:

Obviously we should switch to metric time, with 10 metric hours in a day and 100 metric minutes in each hour.

Well I'd take 16 more days of Paizo awesomeness per year any time :D

WormysQueue wrote:
TiwazBlackhand wrote:

Do, do Europeans think measuring feet aren't a fixed set size? Do you think we're using our actual lower leg appendages and not a fixed, regulated, government standardized measure?

Ahm, no, that bolded part was my point exactly. In the modern world, you only can use feet, inches and yards because they have been defined exactly by metric values since 1959 (as wikipedia tells me). And before that, you had the problem I was talking about, that the actual length of a foot would very much depend on where and from whom it got used.

Keep in mind that I don't mind the U.S. using the imperial system. I just reacted to the claim that it's easier to use than the metric system, as I don't think it's true and the bigger part of planet earth has no problem using it at all.

wikipedia imperial units

Which tells us that they were defined by law in 1824?

What changed was the change to metric when the yard was redefined. It's old measurement equaled

0.914398415 metres

But under the new measurement it was reduced to only .9144 meters.

However, even with that, I'm pretty certain most of the British and ex-British Colonies were able to use the Imperial measurements in the 19th and early 20th century. I think they were even able to coordinate things like the exact area to meet to land in regards to fighting Napoleon, figuring out how far it was to the Americas and other things that might seem impossible to those people who were not enlightened with the metric system!!!

That said, I agree with you. Which ever system you have learned to use most is probably the easiest system for one to utilize in their daily life. Someone who has grown up all their life can probably easily utilize metric in their daily life and would be utterly confused by the imperial system of measurements...and of course, perhaps also...vice versa.

GreyWolfLord wrote:

Someone who has grown up all their life can probably easily utilize metric in their daily life

I have to agree. I have grown up all my life. I still grow up now and I'm about to enter my 40s. and utilizing the metric system in my daily life is easy for me. So your theory seems sound

Anyhoo, still wondering why people have to be rude. Its not like meter discussions are on level of Paladin debates yet!

As someone who recently got a STEM degree, I can assure you that metrication debates are way worse than what we've had on this board regarding paladins and alignment.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Doktor Weasel wrote:
We shouldn't have gone with a base 10 numbering system. Base 12 is superior. 10 is divisible by 1,2,5,10. 12 is divisible by 1,2,3,4,6,12. Then do a metric based on multiples of 12 instead of 10. The problem is base 10 is so ingrained that it's probably more trouble than it's worth to replace it as well as all measurements. Even our language of talking about numbers would need to be redone because it's base 10 thinking.

Yes, it would be a massive effort to convert it. We'd have to add two more fingers or adopt a more complicated hand-counting system, we'd have to add two more number glyphs after 9 (and words for them), and..

REDEFINE THE ASCII TABLE. (omg!) (and any tables based on it like latin-1 and unicode)

And that's a sin. It would be like... human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria.

(0 to 9 are 48 to 57, which makes converting strings to and from integers fairly easy... but 58 and 59 are colon and semicolon, characters that are already used, so you can't just overwrite them with the "9+1" and "9+2" numbers, without causing problems.)

...what? I said I'm STEM-oriented. *defensive* *hides*

ryric wrote:

There is one legacy of base 12 in the modern world - time keeping. Notice that all the subdivisions of time are multiples of 12 - 2*12 = 24 hours in a day, 5*12 minutes in an hour and seconds in a minute. I think base 12 also factors into why there are 360(30*12) degrees in a circle. Thanks ancient Babylon!

Well, it's more of a base-60 thing with time. Base 60 is actually better than 12 for mental calculations, so many factorings. The Babylonians used a combined base-10 and base-60 system.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kerrilyn wrote:
Doktor Weasel wrote:
We shouldn't have gone with a base 10 numbering system. Base 12 is superior. 10 is divisible by 1,2,5,10. 12 is divisible by 1,2,3,4,6,12. Then do a metric based on multiples of 12 instead of 10. The problem is base 10 is so ingrained that it's probably more trouble than it's worth to replace it as well as all measurements. Even our language of talking about numbers would need to be redone because it's base 10 thinking.

Yes, it would be a massive effort to convert it. We'd have to add two more fingers or adopt a more complicated hand-counting system, we'd have to add two more number glyphs after 9 (and words for them), and..

REDEFINE THE ASCII TABLE. (omg!) (and any tables based on it like latin-1 and unicode)

And that's a sin. It would be like... human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria.

(0 to 9 are 48 to 57, which makes converting strings to and from integers fairly easy... but 58 and 59 are colon and semicolon, characters that are already used, so you can't just overwrite them with the "9+1" and "9+2" numbers, without causing problems.)

...what? I said I'm STEM-oriented. *defensive* *hides*

ryric wrote:

There is one legacy of base 12 in the modern world - time keeping. Notice that all the subdivisions of time are multiples of 12 - 2*12 = 24 hours in a day, 5*12 minutes in an hour and seconds in a minute. I think base 12 also factors into why there are 360(30*12) degrees in a circle. Thanks ancient Babylon!

Well, it's more of a base-60 thing with time. Base 60 is actually better than 12 for mental calculations, so many factorings. The Babylonians used a combined base-10 and base-60 system.

I have seen a finger counting method for base-12. Use your thumb as a pointer and point to one of the individual long bones of your fingers, there are 12 of them (1 more than you really need). WIth both hands you can get to 144 by using one as the dozens place and the other as the one's place. Of course you can get to 31 on one hand or 1023 on two by finger counting in binary.

As for names and characters for the new 10 and 11, the current trend by Dozenalists (yes they exist) is to use an upside down 2 for 10 or sometimes an x (called Dek) and an upside down 3 for 11 (called el). 12 is a 1 in the dozens place and called Do. The upside down 2 and three are actually in Unicode. ↊ and ↋. So 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, ↊, ↋, 10 (which is the same as 12 decimal) etc. Wikipedia of course has more info.

Base 60 (and 360!) are great, but have the problem of using too many characters. Twelve is a nice number and only requires two more instead of 50 or 350.

Now we need to work on calendar reform. I like Symmetry454. Split the year into 4 quarters of three months. The first and third month of each quarter is exactly 4 weeks of 7 days (28 days), the second month of each quarter is 5 weeks, 35 days. Leap years are calculated differently but feature a leap week in December making it 35 days. There's a lot of neat features in that every month starts on a Monday and ends on Sunday, any given number is always the same day of the week. And it's got some astronomical features that I don't really understand fully.

but if we had 12 fingers how would we shoot the finger?

but seriously, if they implemented the metric system back when I was 5, id be able to wrap my head around it better, but they didn't....

Kerrilyn wrote:
Doktor Weasel wrote:
We shouldn't have gone with a base 10 numbering system. Base 12 is superior.

Yes, it would be a massive effort to convert it. We'd have to add two more fingers or adopt a more complicated hand-counting system, we'd have to add two more number glyphs after 9 (and words for them), and..

REDEFINE THE ASCII TABLE. (omg!) (and any tables based on it like latin-1 and unicode)

We could convert to base 8 or base 9 a lot easier. We wouldn't need to add any new symbols to the ASCII table, and it's a lot easier to reduce the number of fingers someone has than to add new ones.

GreyWolfLord wrote:

wikipedia imperial units

Which tells us that they were defined by law in 1824?

Ah thanks for the correction, I was referring to This one and read the first paragrapgh the wrong way.

So why do most metric people seem to act like it is simultaneously really easy for imperial measure people to convert to metric(which really it is) but not easy to go the other way? 5’9” is 5 9/12,5.75. A meter is about 3 1/4 feet.. therefore 5’9” is about 1.75 meters. Or to put it another way a meter is just shy of forty inches. The conversion isn’t that hard.(not that I object to providing both for convenience)

It isnt about it being easy. It is about the same for either one to do the backwards conversion. However, it is about using a system that most of the world employs...really what is people's penchant for using a system that is obtuse to most of the world and has been abandoned by any scientific standards?

While base 10 is useful, there are some really interesting studies out there that by making it the only one we learn as children we actually make some things harder. Apparently our brains are pretty decent at working on non linear counting. Dont have a source at the moment, might fish one out later.

EDIT: I also would prefer range bands, melee, very close, close, medium, far..I think 3 range bands would be too few to satisfy the tactical gameplay folk (myself included!)

doomman47 wrote:
considering there only like what 2 maybe 3 countries that use feet/yards instead of metres it would be a welcome addition for the rest of the planet.

I'm in a metric system country myself. but this is a pretty bad reason to do it.

If half the income from Paizo comes from US and UK, it does not matter if 20 countries in south asia which colectively buy less Paizo products than Delaware use metres.

With the increased use of computing, I'd say hexadecimal is the way to go.

Lucas Yew wrote:
Speaking of which, why did the U.S. fail to introduce metric properly? I've heard rumors about bin Laden's attack on New York invoking fervent patriotism nationwide having to do with its last straw, but surely that alone can't be the whole story...

Well, there were plans for the US to go slowly go metric, but Reagan in his infinite wisdom (note: sarcasm) killed it. There were (and still are) a lot of really lame excuses not to go metric. Each of them lamer than the next.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.

There was nothing political about that.

Right. If you can’t figure out how you were dropping politics in that post ...

 1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think the OP's suggesting og having both would be the best for most people.

Personally, I've grumbled since early 3.0 that they should have went with 1 square = 1m/yd. (like the Fuzion RPGs did). Yes, I know that there's a bit of a difference between the two, but they're close enough for game purposes and the difference would be irrelevant as one would use either the metric or the Imperial system. Heck, there's even a slight basis for it in D&D—AD&D used yards for outdoor measurements.

Right. If you can’t figure out how you were dropping politics in that post ...

There was no partisanship, and it was factual. The only bias going on was my preference for the metric system over the crappy Imperial system. The only politics in my statement are the ones that you are imagining. I would rage on any other person, administration, or organization that would keep my country from converting to the clearly superior metric system regardless of their political (or other) affiliation.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Sideromancer wrote:
Kerrilyn wrote:

The Sideromancer wrote:
As a Canadian studying physics, I think of speeds in m/s first, km/h second, cm/s third, miles/h never.

As a Canadian housewife, I think of speeds in km/h first, m/s second, furlongs/fortnight third, and the others never.

I actually have a strong STEM leaning, but I'm not formally trained. At all ^.^;;

I now realize I'm missing another speed unit I use frequently (probably being the actual third): fractions of c.

Light-years are a bit long for distances on a tactical grid, but the light-femto-fortnight is very useful because it's almost exactly the length from my middle fingertips to my elbows.

WormysQueue wrote:
ryric wrote:

Obviously we should switch to metric time, with 10 metric hours in a day and 100 metric minutes in each hour.

Well I'd take 16 more days of Paizo awesomeness per year any time :D

Nah, ten hours to the metric day and a thousand days to the metric year, you'd get much more Paizo awesomeness per year than that. Though it would make waiting for annual AP announcements all the more suspenseful.

 101 to 150 of 336 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>