The US does not “cling on to Imperial units”. The US has never used Imperial units.
Since that article was written way back when, the use of metric has vastly increased in the US, from US autos, which are very substantially metric these days, to electronics (again all metric) and even to supermarkets, where the 2-liter bottle is the standard large soda bottle.
In many cases, products are actually made in a metric dimension, then reverse measured to inch sizes. Most people aren’t especially aware of this, but it is pretty funny to see. The only other metric holdouts are Burma and Liberia, neither exactly known as suppliers of critical components to the world.
You can’t even buy a true fifth of booze to wash it away, as a fifth (757 ml) is now a 750 ml volume, which, instead of 0.2 of a gallon, is 0.198129.
But we still have to buy TVs and monitors in inches, and floppies were that way too until they died. Oh, and rack-mounted servers and other such gear are all 19" still.
Yes, the purchaser certainly did have some idea of the size of a two-liter bottle. It’s the size of a half-gallon bottle. And life experience dealing out soft drinks from a bottle into varying numbers of individual servings will suffice to allow the purchaser to estimate the number of bottles. Not liters, or cubic centimeters. Bottles. And servings.
I reiterate: the “metricness” of a two-liter bottle of soft drinks is absolutely irrelevant, which is why bottlers “got away with it”.
Yes, beverages in metric-sized bottles worked primarily because we do not actually buy product by the unit of measure, but by the package. It doesn’t take long for experience to train us approx how many servings will come from one container.
In theory, that could translate to other items. Take bulk sugar. Typically comes in 10 lb bags. But it is a bulk product that is typically emptied into a bin and then measured out from there for recipies. There’s no reason we couldn’t make the same shift from 10 lb bags to 4.5 kg packages. Or even 4 or 5 kg packages. Very few recipes are going to be based on the 10 lb package.
Other items bought by the package include canned foods, that already come in various sizes of cans. Instead of putting them in 8 fl oz (236 ccm) packages, they could easily be sized in even metric number containers, say 200 ccm (6.76 fl oz).
However, some recipes would be affected, because they are written based on traditional packaging. Like a pie recipe that calls for 1 can of sweetened condensed milk.
Or take produce. While the pricing is given in dollars per unit weight (typically pounds or ounces, depending on the produce), we do not buy X lbs of bananas or cucumbers or tomatoes, we pick a quantity of those items and then calculate the price based on the actual items we selected. Maybe it’s three large bananas, or five smaller bananas, or whichever clump of bananas looks the freshest. The impediment to transition there is mostly the psychological impact of “we’re changing”, with a bit of experience for price comparison shopping. If I’ve historically been buying potatoes at 89c/lb, and suddenly I’m buying them at 42c/kg, is that a good or bad price change? Am I getting robbed or getting a deal?
It wouldn’t take long after a transition that people would be accustomed to the new figures and would then have valid mental references. But psychologically, it’s a bit tougher.
However, there are things that would be tougher. Map-making, as mentioned above, is an explicit example where we hold a custom unit of measure because of the historical use got embedded so heavily that it would take an extensive effort and huge cost to change.
You know what’s ironic?
Back in the 1970s, the United States proclaimed to the world that they were going Metric. That made Canada decide maybe they should go metric too. After all, the U.S. was Canada’s biggest trading partner, and Canada thought their trade would be hurt if the U.S. went all metric and they didn’t.
So, back in the 1970s, Canada went metric. The U.S. didn’t.
There are only three countries that don’t use the Metric system today: The United States, Liberia, and Myanmar (Burma). It’s very likely that Myanmar will be converting over very soon.
That’s right. Canada got trolled. And we did it for the lulz. 
As it has been written - great is the wisdom of the Master - what we’ve got here is ongoing compromise. Americans and British and our various cousins are just not terribly fussed about consistency in our language or in our measuring systems. Run a 5k? Go for it. Order an eight-ounce steak? Sure. Worry about how many grams of fat it has? Well, some of us do.
In the short term, neither system is going away. In the longer term, I think that more people will learn how to judge more things in metric units, and will learn that metric calculations are far easier. Laying out pictures on a wall is just a lot easier when everything is in decimals, but beyond that, I suppose that decimal feet work just as well as those centimeter thingies. Few Americans appreciate decimal feet, so if I’m going to show my work, I guess I’d better change everything back to inches and fractions anyhow.
We’ll just keep muddling along, I expect. We’re good at that.
If I measure a sheet of plywood in Australia, I find that it’s 1200mm x 2400mm. (Builders and carpenters here use millimetres for all measurements.)
Just a bit smaller than 4x8. Like the 750mL fifth (personally, I prefer the 1.75L “half-gallon”).
Not so long ago, I had to buy replacement glass for some cabinet doors. Sure enough, I had to jam in a bunch of shims to keep the thinner, “metric” panes from rattling.
Funny, how it almost always works out that way…
Damn, you got me, you’re right, I know my weight in stone and pounds, but as I knew I was writing to a US audience, I mentioned pounds only - I hold my hands up to that one ! 
Yes that’s true, back when the US was formed, you guys and UK actually agreed on what a pint was, and gallon etc which flow from that i.e 16 fl oz.
It was us in the UK that changed our pint to create the inconsistency, or rather one of our kings, can’t remember which, who being unsatisfied with the thirst quenching ability of his pint of ale decreed that hence forth a pint shall be 20 fl oz, not 16 and the rift was created.
It does mean that we get drunk quicker and as a bonus our cars do more miles per gallon though !
HELLO ! And the UK (mostly) which was my whole point of starting this thread !
The metric is easier to use than the English, i think bad attitude is caused by converting between systems. If we used the metric system, it’d be a lot easier to calculate.
Crap, I can’t believe I messed this up, google lied to me. Sugar regularly comes in 4 lb bags. Doesn’t change my point, just the numbers being used.
No.
The gallon and its subdivisions and multiples in Britain, *ca.*1789, depended on what city you were in, and what you were measuring. The US standardized on one, and the Imperial System (not created until 1824) standardized on another. The two were so completely different that it was not possible in 1959 to rationalize them, though it was done for the inch and the pound, which were off by only one or two parts in a million.
If we’re talking granulated, I most commonly see 5lb bags.
Interesting: mine come in 4 lb bags. About the size of half a standard loaf of bread.
Google image search is illuminating. I find both 4lb and 5lb bags, as well as brands packaged by in kilograms. Amusingly, that last site shows a 4 lb bag (1.81 kg), but the article author is talking about losing 5 lbs and describes it as a 5 lb bag of sugar. Guess she didn’t look too closely at the image. 
A similar website using 1 kilo bags of sugar.
The 4-lb. bags were one of those “product downsizing” deals. Previously, small retail bags were 5-lbs.
Interestingly, I’m starting to see sugar in 5-lb. bags again, albeit at a slightly higher price per pound.
The single most annoying retail trend. I miss my half-gallon ice cream containers.
Powers &8^]