[usui]

I think you might have missed that I already stated that it's an irrational thing to complain about because units in nature are arbitrary, but given that no one uses these units for the topic at hand, why use them at all? Just for relatability?

> It may as well be in hectares or "multiples of some lake somewhere", it's a massive number.

We're saying the same thing but arguing for the opposite. Like I said, no one in a technical capacity uses these units seriously. So then if the number is so conceptually massively big and the units don't matter, why go through the extra forced effort of converting to imperial? Just use the units that the specifications come in and the numbers that the factories use?

The more you play with vast unit conversions like this, the more you risk losing information across sources/citations. What if I want to do my own research later on? It's more work if I'm searching for specific numbers on Google. We also know just how terrible Google Search results are getting nowadays, so...

> We all get it, Americans with their imperial units, ha ha.

I think this is an uncharitable interpretation of my comment. I'm not trying to make fun of Americans, I'm trying to understand what the extra efort is worth for?

[elefanten]

Yes, in short it's for relatability. You're talking about a general circulation newspaper -- and one of the very biggest at that.

At the end of the day, their customer is the general American news consumer, and what they read has to make sense to them.

A technical or industry-aware American probably won't go to WSJ first for their technical / industry news.

[cptskippy]

> why use them at all? Just for relatability?

Yes. Was that hard?

The WSJ didn't write this article for you, it isn't an industry rag. This is like complaining that their scientific articles try to dumb it down for a layman's depth.

A football field or soccer field is a perfectly reasonable unit of measure when you're simply trying to convey "a lot" to someone.

[trangus_1985]

I don't particularly agree with the parent comment, but you are being oddly aggressive over something that is a real problem - communicating things is hard and it's a useful topic to consider in a world that increasingly runs on text-based communication.

[cptskippy]

Insulting and making fun of people because they have a problem isn't helpful but ok, but responding "aggressively" to insults is bad?

[scrollaway]

I don't see any insults or "making fun of people" in the comments you're responding to. You're choosing to see that.

Apply the Principle of good faith and you'll see you're the one getting worked up over nothing...

[dang]

Please don't perpetuate flamewars on HN, regardless of how badly someone else is behaving or you feel they are.

If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it. They include:

"Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[cptskippy]

I'm sorry you feel like I'm worked up but please don't put that on me.

I've linked to the OP's original comment but to paraphrase:

"LOL, I can't take anyone seriously when they use Imperial units. It's unprofessional."

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28449058

[hermitdev]

Pedantically, at least a standard US football field is an exact size (120yds long, 53 1/3 yds wide).

Soccer pitches? Not so much ... FIFA states the field of play for international matches should be 100-110m long and 64-75m wide (tolerances are relaxed to 90-120m long by 45-90m wide - which oddly means you could have a square pitch). If one would like an example of a comically undersized pitch, look to NYFC playing at Yankee stadium - they had to get a special exemption from MLS, IIRC.

Still useful, though, and I think a reasonable person with familiarity with either soccer or football would get a rough idea.

Please don't take this as criticism ; it's not meant to be. The mention of football and soccer fields being used as a measure of size in the same sentence sparked recollection of some not-otherwise-useful knowledge stuck in my brain.

[cptskippy]

I don't think anyone uses them as exact units of measure but rather to communicate a size in relatable terms. When you relate scale to something familiar it elicits connotations from an individual's experience that makes things easier to comprehend.

Most people have seen a football or soccer field and understand the approximate size.

[OJFord]

> A football field or soccer field is a perfectly reasonable unit of measure when you're simply trying to convey "a lot" to someone.

At least in the UK it's somewhat of a 'meme', a byword for a tabloid, in the same league as irrelevant mentions of age and house price, etc.

[cptskippy]

We measure trunk space in terms of bodies it can hold. It's funny and clearly relates the capacity.

[CRConrad]

We do? Depends on who "we" is, I suppose...

I've seen golf bags mentioned quite often. But, come to think of it, that's about equivalent to a body, isn't it?

[cptskippy]

It's a common joke unit of measure to estimate the size of a small enclosed space.

An example: https://youtu.be/J-falgJE1xg?t=211

[imtringued]

If everyone uses a different unit then it may not appear to be a lot at all. Nobody is measuring office space in football fields so how am I supposed to know how a football field sized manufacturing plant compares to an office building?

[cptskippy]

In general conversation, or general news articles people don't need exact units of measure because they're not acting upon that information. You use an approximation like football fields because it elicits a connotation and can help people easily grasp the scale.