I know you’re kidding about the last part, but the first part describes exactly why there’s no real need for the second part!
why are stones/pounds any sillier than feet/ inches?
That’s because pounds are suited to measuring smaller objects. Such as a good meal, or a large stool, or a bladder of urine…
Also, I understand that stones can be painful.
A full bladder weighs more(*) than a kilogram, but I’d rue to have a full stone of pee.
(* - I know because I had to urinate after a surgical procedure which left me horizontal. I “didn’t know how” to urinate horizontally – nor with someone watching – and the nurse even felt my bladder, disbelieving that I had to go! :rolleyes: I did go eventually, and had to will the flow to stop once I’d filled the 1-litre urine bottle. :eek: )
I too am distance challenched. I don’t have much of a clue about what “500 meters”, for instance, is. By experience, I know that I tend to vastly underestimate distances. So, if I tell you “that’s about 500 metres away”, it’s in fact more likely to be 1 kilometre away or more.
I’m also surface-challenged, so I don’t really have any clue about how large is, say, 10 hectares (that despite having been raised in the countryside, where hectares would frequently be mentionned). Same with square meters (except for small surfaces, like the size of appartments, for instance). If you tell me your yard is 4000 square meters, I have first to figure out it’s 40 metersx100 meters, which only marginally helps, since I don’t exactly know how long is 40 meters.
Even though less relevant, I’m also left/right challenged. I have to think for a brief intant about it, in order to determine which of my hands is the right one. Then, I know that “right” is on this hand’s side. Still, if I answer too quickly to someone asking for directions, I’am perfectly able to tell him “it’s the second building on the right”, while pointing to the left.
Despite all that, for some reason I’ve a quite good sense of orientation in the countryside (woods, for instance) I might tell you we’re going to find a path near this 20 hectares field (which is actually 10 hectares), 3 kilometers away (in fact maybe 7 kilometers) on the right (while walking towards the left). I’m still likely to bring you there correctly.
This (relatively good sense of orientation) doesn’t apply in urban areas, that I’m quite bad at navigating.
Huh. Thanks for the info.
I always had wondered why the USA had so long streets/roads. I was assuming that if your adress was 17497, it meant it was the 17497th building in this particular (and obviously very long) street or road.
Well, it’s entirely dependent on local custom for numbering; there’s no consistency.
In the example which Inner Stickler gives (“17497” being just south of 17th Street), you could also find examples (such as in Chicago) where that address would be just south of 174th Street. Generally, if a street is numbered (like 17th Street), the house numbers will reflect that, using the numbered streets as bases, but again, there’ll be exceptions. In the near west suburbs of Chicago, there’s a series of north-south avenues, starting with First Avenue, and going to 25th Avenue. As far as I can tell, those avenues have no bearing on the house numbers of the houses in that area.
In Chicago, the baseline for street addresses is the corner of State and Madison, downtown. Some suburbs follow the Chicago numbering system, while others don’t. A good example of this along 17th Avenue (a.k.a. Maple Avenue) – between Cermak Road and 31st Street, the east side of 17th Avenue is in Brookfield, while the west side of 17th is in La Grange Park. Brookfield follows the Chicago numbering system; La Grange Park doesn’t. As you drive south on 17th Avenue, if you look to your left (Brookfield), you see house numbers going up in value, and following the numbering of the east-west streets (i.e., you pass 26th Street, and the house numbers are 2601, 2603, 2605, etc.) Meanwhile, on the right side of the street, the numbers are getting smaller, and are completely different from what’s on the other side (i.e., 1800s, then 1700s, etc.), as La Grange Park numbers their houses on north-south streets from a 0 baseline at the southern end of the village.