[grw_]

> Thermal sensors are a case in point. Today, one that costs about $1,000 and weighs as little as five sachets of sugar

Seriously, we're using _sachets of sugar_ to convey weight?

Later in the article:

> Two decades ago, he adds, a less sensitive thermal sensor weighing a kilogram cost ten times as much

And:

> A poncho called Noa lite, developed by Fibrotex, an Israeli firm that supplies America’s army, weighs less than 700g

Why do journalists do this?

[traceroute66]

> Why do journalists do this?

I know !

It must be a special part of the curriculum at Journalist School.

I imagine the conversation goes something like this....

"No Mr Young Journalist, you cannot use the metric system, and no Mr Young Journalist, you cannot use the imperial system. You must ALWAYS refer to items in relative proportion to some random object of your choice be that swimming pools, football pitches, jumbo jets or bags of sugar ... whatever takes your fancy when you get out of bed that morning, but it must NEVER be metric or imperial measurements".

[KRAKRISMOTT]

It's good writing technique to use an alternative word instead of repeating things.

[imwillofficial]

No, not in this case. You don’t muddy the waters with measurement. You pick a way of expressing it and stay consistent.

[xattt]

Sounds like a way to rehash words to avoid reiteration.

[imwillofficial]

No, it’s just poor writing. You pick a consistent measurement metric so the audience can judge, compare, and contrast between various items you’ve touched on.

[dividedbyzero]

They're not comparing things to each other, so they don't really have to be that consistent. "Less than five sachets of sugar" is a little more precise than saying "very lightweight", which is a useful level of precision as no one in the audience will know what a typical IR sensor should weigh, but greater precision is of no use to them since they will never handle one outside of a finished product, if at all. Also very low as well as very high weights are harder to relate to for most people, which is why elephants and sheets of paper are used so readily. If done well, this isn't bad style at all, though it is reliably off-putting to people used to read technical documents where precision levels carry a different kind of weight.

[eptcyka]

When it's put in the context of older generations weighing several killograms, surely stating the absolute amount would still bring enough context for the reader to understand the severity of change? Or what about referring to the weight both in grams and using a metaphor at the same time?

[imwillofficial]

In a non-technical piece like this, it’s not the precision, it’s the consistency. If you measure things in sweetener packets, everything is in sweetener packets.

[prennert]

As long as shrinkflation is keeping up with the decreasing sensor price over time, then this measure may hold true for longer than if metric or imperial measures were used

[thanatos519]

The Register does it best! https://www.theregister.com/Design/page/reg-standards-conver...

[fnordpiglet]

It’s good they specified sugar as sugar substitutes have wildly different densities. Imagine the confusion if they said “sweetener!” That’s the sort of stuff that makes space missions fail.

[IntrepidWorm]

One wonders if the packets were US specification (a precise 2 - 4 grams) or the much looser Polish designation (5 - 10 grams). It's critical to get to the bottom of this: what is the SI standard for sugar sachet?

[hammyhavoc]

Probably because journalists aren't scientists and their output is there to generate money for a publication, and fluffy bollocks means cash.

[rbanffy]

> Seriously, we're using _sachets of sugar_ to convey weight?

Anything but metric.

I get the reason - it conveys the notion on an emotional level.

But how many sparrows are that?

[smcl]

Weird thing is that I don't actually have a connection to five sachets of sugar. People might frequently handle one or two sachets at a time and can conceive of the idea that five isn't that much heavier but at that point we might as well write "... and weighs as little as 20 grams, or roughly five sachets of sugar"

[rbanffy]

I've been using sweeteners for years now and, while some go to great lengths to have the same volume "per sweetness" as sugar, they weight much less.

[smcl]

Ah that's something I didn't even consider - and I guess a lot of people don't even consume things that we normally add individual sachets of sugar to. At least giving the weight in grams gives you something to go by.

Ultimately it's not a huge deal, it is still a little odd though!