'Et cetera' is two words. That's just fucking Latin. Don't be bastardizin' mah Latin! Oh look, there's a 14000+ word Wikipedia mega-essay on why British people suck.
Theoretically you can post hated anime in any thread on this forums, for it provokes controversies, as long as you point out that you don't like it yourself there can't be hard feelings, because, as a matter of fact, almost no threads stay on topic for longer then page 1 anyway.
Customary units use a lot of factors of 2 and 3 (as opposed to factors of 10) because it makes packaging products simpler and more efficient (also the reason that a dozen is twelve). If I have a small package of widgets that takes up an ounce of space and I want to combine enough small packages to make a larger one gallon package, I have about a bajillion different efficient 3d orientations because a gallon is 128 (2^7) ounces. One of my math professors wrote his master's thesis on efficient packaging. It's a srs bns. And Metric units? Well, they use base ten so mental conversions are easy as pie. I can always get a calculator for conversions, but I can't cut a bottle of liquid in half to fit more on a shipping pallet (and save me moneh!). Ergo, metric units cost more.
If you have no brains, yeah ... if you had you would notice that weight=/= volume, beside if you sell water in a ultrathin plastic layer... PS you can put 5*200ml or 4*250ml or 10*100ml in a 1l package or 10*200ml in 2l Your arguement is not only invalid but based on false facts.
Never saw a 355ml can but 3*330ml= 990ml+ package=a perfect 1l fit But I doubt they will ever come in cuboids for cheaper transport ...
I've only seen 355 with Mountain Dew, which I assume is because they import the cans from the US, and they use Fluid Ounces, which is kind of dumb. I just guess it goes into that. But yeah, besides that, everything else I've seen is 330.
Then Fooshi cries. But yes, this is what happens. The whole point of the metric system is quickly defeated. You don't know how packaging works. You can't change those amounts quickly and sometimes you can't change them at all. Check the example below. What if I have a medication? I'm moving user-level containers of 90 day supply of X pills. That's an industry standard 3-month supply. The user must get a bottle that holds 90 days worth of pills. I have to fit these bottles into a case. A case is typically a cardboard box that weighs enough for a person to easily move by hand. The size of the case can vary, but my warehouse is moving dozens of drugs. I can't manage the distribution, storage and disposal of dozens of different box sizes. I also have to these cases on a pallet. Pallet sizes are industry standard (so they can fit on trucks and racks). They only take so much volume and so much weight (but weight is rarely the issue). Cases are 'shrink-wrapped' around the pallets to prevent cases from falling off, but they still need to be packed well. Now do you see how this can become a master's thesis?
Geez I think you just got yourself an entire cookie jar. I think it's more like you don't know how to math and physics and all that stuff you need to convert volume to weight ... but I'm sure you're talking about fluid ounces ... that would make actually more sense, all righty since it's no difference wether you talk about volume or weight to you, you whole arguement is still bollox, and industrial pallets here are a different size then over in the US we have so called Europallets. And guess what. They are 1m*1m You can still fit 90 pills in a bottle since the number, 90 won't change wether you calculate it in liter or ounce, and if you have to fit 91 pills in a bottle the world will start rotating in teh wrong direction.
Strawman. It was obvious that we are talking about fluid ounces. There are 128 fluid ounces in a gallon. Another strawman. I don't care about the size of the pallets. The point is that we are confined to some arbitrary standard. It doesn't matter that Euros had so much trouble maximizing pallet loads that they had to break the standard (which costs money). One more strawman for the road. It's not about fitting 91 pills in the bottle, it's about fitting the bottles in a case and the cases on a pallet. The case size is your only variable, but you managed to miss that entirely. The bottom line is that there are two factors of ten, but there are three factors of both eight and twelve. That's it. You get more permutations from three factors than from two. Three is, in fact, greater than two. The argument that you should've pursued is the time saved by ease of mental calculation. While basically unmeasurable, it does save money. It comes down to whether the savings are greater than the costs.
we should use primary sexual organs (i wanted to write penis, but then i realized that we will have more then 50% NaNs) to count.
qft 1 big penis equals 3.8228 small penises. We can use tight and wide vaginas as weight messurement.
