[Renaud]

There is at least one reason for me that metric is vastly superior as a way to describe the world than the UK or US version of Imperial: the relationship between mass, volume and length is trivially easy to understand.

A small cube of 1cm represents 1cm³, which is also 1mL which is also 1g of water.

So a cube just 10cm across contains 1000cm³, or exactly 1 Litre and weighs exactly 1kg (of water).

It's easy to grasps and visually/physically see the relationship between these fundamental units.

Relationships to other fundamental units is also greatly simplified: the Newton is the mount of force needed to accelerate 1kg to 1m/s²; the Joule is the amount of energy needed to move 1kg by 1m or moving 1A through 1Ω, ...

Not all units are so cleanly expressed in terms of other units, but, at least for the everyday ones, the kg, Litre and metre, the relationship is easy to understand.

To me, Imperial measurements are confusing. It's even worse considering how food recipes are described in terms of cups (a unit of volume) rather than weight.

Getting a cup of dry pasta is not going to give me the same amount of pasta depending on the shape of the pasta I'm trying to cook. Try getting a cup of spaghetti.

[kps]

  > the relationship between mass, volume and length is trivially easy to understand.

Imperial units also have a simple relationship between mass and volume. In the US, a pint's a pound the world around, and in the world around the US, a pint of water is a pound and a quarter, and in some of those places that rhymes.

(One fluid ounce — either kind — of water weights approximately one ounce.)

[com2kid]

> In the US, a pint's a pound the world around

Having been born and raised in the US, I have never heard this before.

Presumably you are referring to a pint of water?

(Then again we never learned pints anyway, so meh)

[rquantz]

a pint's a pound the world around

I always wondered if butter was the basis for standard units. There's something rather wonderful about that idea to me.