Sci Am has a lot of wonderful and interesting articles, but they also have an annoying liberal slant. This article sounds like it fits in with the editorial worldview.
I get Scientific American because of the stimulating articles in obscure areas of science, written by experts. I overlook the obvious global warming bias that often creeps in. For example, in a recent issue they had an article about how the Keystone pipeline would be bad for global warming because oil sands are carbon intensive to mine and refine.
Since you know that the global warming articles are inaccurate, what leads you to believe that the other articles are accurate? I follow the philosophy that once a lie is told, never believe the liar again.
“Sci Am has a lot of wonderful and interesting articles, but they also have an annoying liberal slant. This article sounds like it fits in with the editorial worldview.”
I quit subscribing years ago. I got sick of the pushing/shoving of whatever agenda the editorial board wants to follow. Some of the articles are okay, but most are not “real” journal articles. Think science “filtered” so that we “peons” can understand it. I hate condescension, especially by supposed elites.
The push to “go metric” is just one more instance of our “betters” knowing what is best for us and telling us how we should think. They believe (they really do!) that we “peons” are too stupid to be able to use more than one system of measurement, and to be able to switch back and forth as needed.
The metric system has its place in science, as it does make calculations easier, but that doesn’t mean it is a good replacement for other systems of measurement for other purposes.
Same thing goes for the centigrade/fahrenheit controversy...
American businesses use metric measurements when it suits their economic purposes, as they should. The government already controls enough of our economy - we need no more czars in our lives.
Why do you think proposing a BETTER measurement system is liberal?