Why is the metric system associated with the '70s?

[TXtoNJ]

I don't know why you wouldn't just round cups up to 250 ml and pints to 500. Then you just replace quarts with liters and have a 4 l gallon.

[kkt]

I don't know why you wouldn't just round cups up to 250 ml and pints to 500. Then you just replace quarts with liters and have a 4 l gallon.

Why would you have fake quarts and gallons that could confuse you if you use old recipes, when you could just use real liters and ml?

[kphoger]

I don't know why you wouldn't just round cups up to 250 ml and pints to 500. Then you just replace quarts with liters and have a 4 l gallon.

Why would you have fake quarts and gallons that could confuse you if you use old recipes, when you could just use real liters and ml?

Why would you use real liters and ml that could confuse you if you use old recipes, when you could just use quarts and gallons?   

[CNGL-Leudimin]

Nah, just use barn-megaparsecs like I do .

[Dirt Roads]

Nah, just use barn-megaparsecs like I do .

Wow!  Anybody remember when HP started producing graphing calculators back in the mid-1980s?  The handbook for the HP-28 included a method for converting barn-megaparsecs to gallons.  I was too old to be forced to learn how to use, and too young to have the resources to afford one just for the fun of it.  My son has one of the newer versions, and it looks pretty cool but I've never taken the time to learn how to use it in graph mode.  I'll still to Microsoft Excel, but I still have Lotus 1-2-3 and a DOS machine if I ever need to go back in time.

It's online:  https://literature.hpcalc.org/books/hp28-pb.pdf

[TXtoNJ]

I don't know why you wouldn't just round cups up to 250 ml and pints to 500. Then you just replace quarts with liters and have a 4 l gallon.

Why would you have fake quarts and gallons that could confuse you if you use old recipes, when you could just use real liters and ml?

The ratios are the same, you'd just have a little bit more of it.

[hotdogPi]

I don't know why you wouldn't just round cups up to 250 ml and pints to 500. Then you just replace quarts with liters and have a 4 l gallon.

Why would you have fake quarts and gallons that could confuse you if you use old recipes, when you could just use real liters and ml?

The ratios are the same, you'd just have a little bit more of it.

Some recipes don't scale linearly.

[TXtoNJ]

I don't know why you wouldn't just round cups up to 250 ml and pints to 500. Then you just replace quarts with liters and have a 4 l gallon.

Why would you have fake quarts and gallons that could confuse you if you use old recipes, when you could just use real liters and ml?

The ratios are the same, you'd just have a little bit more of it.

Some recipes don't scale linearly.

At which point, why are you working from a recipe? It would be trial and error anyway.

[kalvado]

I don't know why you wouldn't just round cups up to 250 ml and pints to 500. Then you just replace quarts with liters and have a 4 l gallon.

Why would you have fake quarts and gallons that could confuse you if you use old recipes, when you could just use real liters and ml?

The ratios are the same, you'd just have a little bit more of it.

Which is OK for the loaf of bread. But what about filling 9000 gallon LN2 tank or 550 gallon fuel oil tank or  30,110 gallon rail car? Those spills may be expensive to deal with.
Look at Gimli Glider story  (no, Tolkien is not involved) as an example of what can come out of messing with units...

[kkt]

I don't know why you wouldn't just round cups up to 250 ml and pints to 500. Then you just replace quarts with liters and have a 4 l gallon.

Why would you have fake quarts and gallons that could confuse you if you use old recipes, when you could just use real liters and ml?

The ratios are the same, you'd just have a little bit more of it.

Unless you added eggs.  Or yeast by the teaspoon.  Or it had to bake for a certain length of time.

[1995hoo]

Nah, just use barn-megaparsecs like I do .

Wow!  Anybody remember when HP started producing graphing calculators back in the mid-1980s?  The handbook for the HP-28 included a method for converting barn-megaparsecs to gallons.  I was too old to be forced to learn how to use, and too young to have the resources to afford one just for the fun of it.  My son has one of the newer versions, and it looks pretty cool but I've never taken the time to learn how to use it in graph mode.  I'll still to Microsoft Excel, but I still have Lotus 1-2-3 and a DOS machine if I ever need to go back in time.

It's online:  https://literature.hpcalc.org/books/hp28-pb.pdf

The main thing I remember about those being introduced was controversy over whether they should be permitted in high school math classes.

[Dirt Roads]

Nah, just use barn-megaparsecs like I do .

Wow!  Anybody remember when HP started producing graphing calculators back in the mid-1980s?  The handbook for the HP-28 included a method for converting barn-megaparsecs to gallons.  I was too old to be forced to learn how to use, and too young to have the resources to afford one just for the fun of it. 

The main thing I remember about those being introduced was controversy over whether they should be permitted in high school math classes.

That's the main concern I have with one-size-fits-all college prep versions of math and science.  My son needs some courses totally without devices (he behaves with the calculator, but gets distracted with his smart phone and laptop).  He hasn't been able to use pencil and paper to solve problems since COVID locked things down.  And that's totally different than those who struggle with wanting to cheat using their devices.  On the other hand, I am one that grabs every tool I can get my hands on to solve tough problems (oftentimes, that means mechanics tools).  We also need specific classes that push kids to improvise when the problems get too tough to solve on paper.  (Which might take us back to barn-megaparsecs).

[hotdogPi]

In Safari (and probably other browsers), entering something in the search bar compatible with Google Calculator (except currency) will calculate it, even without pressing enter. My favorites:

wh%7J = 2 joules. It looks like a random string of characters, but it actually means something. (In this context, % is modulo.)

mm^-2 to mpg = 2.35214583 miles per gallon. In fact, anything with units of length^-2 is treated as fuel economy.

[webny99]

In Safari (and probably other browsers), entering something in the search bar compatible with Google Calculator (except currency) will calculate it, even without pressing enter.

Google Chrome is the same way. Only in the regular browser, though, not incognito.

[CNGL-Leudimin]

In Safari (and probably other browsers), entering something in the search bar compatible with Google Calculator (except currency) will calculate it, even without pressing enter. My favorites:

wh%7J = 2 joules. It looks like a random string of characters, but it actually means something. (In this context, % is modulo.)

mm^-2 to mpg = 2.35214583 miles per gallon. In fact, anything with units of length^-2 is treated as fuel economy.

The latter happens because fuel economy is length divided by volume, i.e. the reciprocal of surface. Now I think, since over here fuel economy is expressed in liters per 100 km (i.e. surface!), I might start using square centimeters (cm^2) to express that xD.

Also works on Firefox BTW.

[kalvado]

In Safari (and probably other browsers), entering something in the search bar compatible with Google Calculator (except currency) will calculate it, even without pressing enter. My favorites:

wh%7J = 2 joules. It looks like a random string of characters, but it actually means something. (In this context, % is modulo.)

mm^-2 to mpg = 2.35214583 miles per gallon. In fact, anything with units of length^-2 is treated as fuel economy.

The latter happens because fuel economy is length divided by volume, i.e. the reciprocal of surface. Now I think, since over here fuel economy is expressed in liters per 100 km (i.e. surface!), I might start using square centimeters (cm^2) to express that xD.

Also works on Firefox BTW.

You can visualize that as a filament filled with fuel, which is burnt as vehicle drives along. Cross-section of that filament is the fuel economy. 1 mm square is 1 liter/km = 100 liters/100 km. MPG arithmetic is a bit more involved.
The more fuel vehicle burns, the larger that filament should be. 

[TXtoNJ]

I don't know why you wouldn't just round cups up to 250 ml and pints to 500. Then you just replace quarts with liters and have a 4 l gallon.

Why would you have fake quarts and gallons that could confuse you if you use old recipes, when you could just use real liters and ml?

The ratios are the same, you'd just have a little bit more of it.

Unless you added eggs.  Or yeast by the teaspoon.  Or it had to bake for a certain length of time.

You're looking for ways to make it a problem, rather than looking at the rest of the world where this is not an issue at all.

Eggs are added... by the egg.
Dry ingredients are measured by mass, not by volume (so you'd add 3 g of yeast, or 3.15 if you had to be exact, which you almost never do. Also you should be weighing dry ingredients anyway).
Last I checked, you never bake by the clock, it's only a guide.

[kphoger]

Also you should be weighing dry ingredients anyway

And not follow any recipe I have? which all measure dry ingredients by the cup.

[TXtoNJ]

Also you should be weighing dry ingredients anyway

And not follow any recipe I have? which all measure dry ingredients by the cup.

Yup. Weight is far more accurate and consistent (you don't get any lumpy cups). You can find the conversions anywhere online.

Here's an example:

Cups	Grams	Ounces
1/4 c	34 g	1.2 oz
1/3 c	45 g	1.6 oz
1/2 c	68 g	2.4 oz
1 c	136 g	4.8 oz

A kitchen scale you can pick up for $10 makes it easy, and you won't have to worry about being sure you have a flat cup again. 136 g is always 136 g.

[hotdogPi]

Cups	Grams	Ounces
1/4 c	34 g	1.2 oz
1/3 c	45 g	1.6 oz
1/2 c	68 g	2.4 oz
1 c	136 g	4.8 oz

The numbers you just gave imply a density of 0.58 g/cm³, which is very low for anything you would cook with (water is 1, and anything made from living things is near this value).

[kphoger]

A kitchen scale you can pick up for $10 makes it easy, and you won't have to worry about being sure you have a flat cup again. 136 g is always 136 g.

Does it come with extra counter space, built-in calculator, conversion chart displayed on the side, ...?

(Seriously, I have precious little counter space as it is.)

[Scott5114]

My scale converts between ounces and kilograms. It's handy to have around for things other than measuring out weight for cooking (for instance, measuring out a serving size to prevent eating too big of a portion).

Most people can make the counter space up by putting their spices in a cupboard where they belong, since the darkness helps keep them from going bad as quickly.

[1995hoo]

Nah, just use barn-megaparsecs like I do .

Wow!  Anybody remember when HP started producing graphing calculators back in the mid-1980s?  The handbook for the HP-28 included a method for converting barn-megaparsecs to gallons.  I was too old to be forced to learn how to use, and too young to have the resources to afford one just for the fun of it. 

The main thing I remember about those being introduced was controversy over whether they should be permitted in high school math classes.

That's the main concern I have with one-size-fits-all college prep versions of math and science.  My son needs some courses totally without devices (he behaves with the calculator, but gets distracted with his smart phone and laptop).  He hasn't been able to use pencil and paper to solve problems since COVID locked things down.  And that's totally different than those who struggle with wanting to cheat using their devices.  On the other hand, I am one that grabs every tool I can get my hands on to solve tough problems (oftentimes, that means mechanics tools).  We also need specific classes that push kids to improvise when the problems get too tough to solve on paper.  (Which might take us back to barn-megaparsecs).

Part of the issue when I was in high school was a fairness issue: Graphing calculators were new and were relatively expensive as far as calculators went. Not all kids could buy them, and not all parents who could buy them for their kids were willing to buy them. So there was a legitimate fairness question about whether the kids who had them should be allowed to use them.



Regarding the cooking measurements discussion, I have a compact kitchen scale I pull out when necessary. The one trick is that, as "1" noted, the conversion from volume to mass isn't necessarily the same for every ingredient. I have an iPhone app called Kitchen Calculator Pro that will perform such conversions and will ask you what the ingredient is. Very useful for that sort of thing.

[kphoger]

Most people can make the counter space up by putting their spices in a cupboard where they belong, since the darkness helps keep them from going bad as quickly.

People keep their spices on the counter??  All my spices are in a rack, mounted to the wall in the back hall.

The toaster oven is on top of the mini fridge in front of the window.  On the counter are two big jars of cooking utensils (one for metal and one for plastic/wooden ones), the microwave oven, the Keurig, and some clear canisters of specialty baking ingredients for my wife's diet (with the extra bags stored in cupboards).  We only have one counter–half on the right side of the sink and half on the left.  No island, no secondary counter space.

We have an in-sink dish drainer.  By state regulation, kitchen knives are stored away in a locked cupboard (under the sink, along with cutting boards and baking sheets).  The canisters of regular baking ingredients are kept in the dining room on a baker's rack, along with the crock pot.  Less-used big things like the stand mixer and food processor are stored in the basement.  Trust me, we've already moved as much as possible off the countertop.

Considering that we have no need for a kitchen scale, why would we get one?  All our recipes are measured in cups, and we have those.  I know how to pack a cup of brown sugar and how to not pack a cup of flour.

[J N Winkler]

Some kitchens are just very small.

We do have a kitchen scale, but it lives in a cabinet and is more likely to be pulled out to estimate postage than to measure ingredients.

I keep the measuring (either by mass or by volume) to a minimum when I cook, except for water for soup and ingredients for dishes (such as hot oatmeal) that are mixed from scratch and then cooked in the microwave for fixed lengths of time.