# My productivity peaks between...

Displaying poll results.26888 total votes.

### Most Votes

- If the United States presidential election were held today, I would vote for: Posted on July 27th, 2016 | 48733 votes
- My main computer runs the following operating system: Posted on August 16th, 2016 | 36836 votes
- Who won the first US Presidential Debate of 2016? Posted on September 27th, 2016 | 18584 votes

### Most Comments

- If the United States presidential election were held today, I would vote for: Posted on September 27th, 2016 | 993 comments
- My main computer runs the following operating system: Posted on September 27th, 2016 | 599 comments
- Should President Obama pardon or otherwise free Edward Snowden from the legal burden hanging over him? Posted on September 27th, 2016 | 375 comments

## Re:9am to 5pm work day? (Score:5, Insightful)

## Re:24h clock (Score:5, Insightful)

Again, Americans are the ones lagging behind the rest of the world in this regard. Not as bad as the metric system but close.

## Re:9am to 5pm work day? (Score:5, Insightful)

Nonsense.. not only does it never mention 9 or 5, it splits the day into 6 even segments of 4 hours. If what you mean is "it *presumes everybody works consistent hours", that's not necessarily true either. Who says when you're working is when your "peak" productivity occurs? Note - it doesn't ask which time period you're most productive over, just at which point productivity peaks. If you can't work out an average for this, then just go with one of the joke options.

## Re:24h clock (Score:5, Insightful)

## Mornings are for getting things done. (Score:4, Insightful)

Attack early the tasks which require the most thought. Once past lunch it's cruise through things which have already been figured out. I tend to get a second wind later in the day or evening. Sometimes as late as 9 PM I'll start tacking knotty problems with gusto and vigor.

## Re:24h clock (Score:5, Insightful)

First, the English system is better than metric because a lot of it is based on fractions. Half a pint, a quarter of an inch. It is much easier for the human eye to split something into halves than tenths. Which makes it much easier to figure out what 1/16 of an inch is compared to 0.1 cm. Now, instead of converting to metric, what we should have done is convert to base 16 numbering system.

Fractions may be easier to estimate by eye, but they're more difficult to do calculations with, requiring you to first convert all the fractions to the same denominator.

The metric system also scales better. No weird conversions between 'orders of magnitude'. Compare mile, yard, inch to km, m, mm.

There's also an element of being used to measurement units. I have no problem estimating measurements in cm or mm, I'd have a much harder time having to repeatedly divide by 2 to get at 1/16".

Second, the English system is more future proof then the metric every was. You can't convert 1 mm to cm exactly in floating point, so there are all these rounding errors with the base-10 that the metric system is inseparably linked to. In hexadecimal, it would be .166666 (repeating) cm! What a horrible system in the age of computers!

That's a very computer-centric way to look at things. We invented computers so they could make things easy for us, not the other way round. There are ways to have the computer do calculations without rounding errors, so use them.

## Re:24h clock (Score:4, Insightful)

When I wake up in the morning I want to brew

a quartof coffee, not 110.12 centi-Liters or some ridiculous shit like that.So, a liter then. Why do you think we use more significant digits just because we use metric? Let me use the same ridiculous argument you do:

"

Let me be the first to say, "Fuck the imperial system". You guys can keep it. When I wake up in the morning I want to brew a liter of coffee, not 1.05669 quarts or some ridiculous shit like that. Your system is unnecessarily complex."(Of course, I had no idea which of the several types of quarts you were referring to, so my numbers may be incorrect - but then, so were yours).

## Re:24h clock (Score:5, Insightful)

Totally agree with this, for two reasons.

First, the English system is better than metric because a lot of it is based on fractions. Half a pint, a quarter of an inch. It is much easier for the human eye to split something into halves than tenths. Which makes it much easier to figure out what 1/16 of an inch is compared to 0.1 cm.

So much wrong.

That is precisely why the Imperial systems were wrong and replaced.

Multiply and deviding using fraction across multiple incongruent measurements is harder for both humans and computers. I can break a metric distance measurement into smaller units without any effort, I.E. 2.040345 Kilometres, I know how many metres, centimetres and millimetres I need to deal with at a glance. However 1.267811 Miles, how many feet, inches and fractions of inches do you need? Try to figure it out in your head without a calculator or even a sheet of paper.

Beyond this, different types of measurements are compatible, 1 Litre of is 10 centimetres cubed (a "CC" is a cubic centimetre), how many inches make a gallon?. In the metric system, units of area, length, volume and mass are designed to fit together in a computationally convenient way.

Erm, yes you can. You can change exponents. The entire metric system was made to be scalable in a way that is beyond the capabilities of Imperial system.

You'll have a lot more trouble with floating points in an Imperial system. Instead of saying 2.040345 kilometres you'd have to specify X Miles, X yards, X feet, X Inches. Four different measurements and they have different fractions, an inch is 1/12 of a foot, a foot is 1/3 of a yard and a yard is 1/1760 of a mile (yards are clearly an easy to compute fraction).

Kilometres, Metres, Millimetres and the rest of the metric scale is interchangeable and scalable.