Surprising things we've learnt today

[Bledlow]

I learnt that if you approach a number of charities with the offer of a team of volunteers from your work to undertake a day's hard labour for them for they reply with "yes we'd be delighted - that will be £50-£100 per head please".   It's going to cost us about £20K to roll this out to the whole team !

They treat it as a fund raising opportunity, with the work the volunteers do as a bonus. They've discovered that they can charge corporate volunteers crazy money for H&S assessments & charge multiple times for the same assessment, charge for supervision at hourly rates that would make a libel lawyer blench, etc., & it won't be queried. Ask 'em for a breakdown, & justification of the costs, & they may decide it can be done a lot cheaper. They'll still get things done, and make money on top.

I refused to take part in any more Vodafone corporate volunteering when I found that paying workmen to do it would have been significantly cheaper. I've nothing against firms giving money to charity, I like the idea of volunteering (& enjoyed the activities I took part in), & have nothing against corporate jollies. But the dishonesty of the charity concerned offended me.

[Rig of Jarkness]

Today I learnt - somewhat belatedly - that the kilogram does not have the same mass as it used to !  Apparently the seemingly inert lump of metal held in Paris as the reference, Le Grand K as it is known, is now out of sync with its sister copies to the tune of 'about 50 parts in a billion, less than a single grain in a bag of sugar'.  There's now quite a controversy about what to do about it...BBC News - Curbing the kilogram's weight-loss programme

[clarion]

The attempt to redefine the kilogramme has been ongoing for a very long while.  The BBC seem to think that, just because they've only now become aware, that it's a new issue

[Bledlow]

The BBC hasn't just become aware of it. It's revived the story because of the Royal Society discussion meeting over the last couple of days.

Note that the story has links in it to older BBC stories, e.g. one from 2007, discussing the same issue, including the redefinition debate.

I think it's good that the BBC reports on such things when there's a significant event such as the Royal Society meeting.

[clarion]

Ok, that's fair.  My quick skim meant I missed the older references, and the radio report last night seemed to suggest it was a new issue.

tbf, I learned about the issue of defining the kilo from a BBC programme some time ago.

[Bledlow]

... the radio report last night seemed to suggest it was a new issue..

Sloppy journalism, by the sound of it. Not exactly rare. The science correspondent probably knew all about it, but what goes out has often had the grubby paws of ignorant subeditors all over it.

[clarion]

This.  Strongly suspected.

[Cudzoziemiec]

I thought that the kg had long since ceased to be defined in relation to that lump of metal, just as the units of length etc have also been redefined in terms of, IIRC, the distance travelled by light in a certain time under specific circumstances?

[clarion]

Bit more difficult to define the kilogramme than distance or time.

[Clandy]

On the other hand it's the kilogram, which still means nothing to me. Talk in pounds and ounces and I will have reference.

[andygates]

Wouldn't it be the mass of yea-many moles of yea-stuff, at STP?  

"The kilogram is defined as being equal to the mass of the International Prototype Kilogram"

Aha, no, it is still a physical thing.  They'll probably change that in the coming review.

Clandy: for the modernity-challenged, "two and a quarter pounds of jam / weigh about a kilogram!" 

[clarion]

On the other hand it's the kilogram, which still means nothing to me. Talk in pounds and ounces and I will have reference.

And how are they defined?

[Bledlow]

Oooh, you wicked, wicked, person! 

[geraldc]

Surely mentally converting imperial to metric is what most audaxers spend most of their time doing.

[Cudzoziemiec]

On the other hand it's the kilogram, which still means nothing to me. Talk in pounds and ounces and I will have reference.

And how are they defined?

In terms of jam? 

[Bledlow]

On the other hand it's the kilogram, which still means nothing to me. Talk in pounds and ounces and I will have reference.

I didn't realise you were that old. I remember using metric measures at school when I was spending shillings, tanners, threepenny bits, halfpennies & half-crowns (lot of money, that).

[Clandy]

On the other hand it's the kilogram, which still means nothing to me. Talk in pounds and ounces and I will have reference.

I didn't realise you were that old. I remember using metric measures at school when I was spending shillings, tanners, threepenny bits, halfpennies & half-crowns (lot of money, that).

Ask anyone in this country how much they weigh or how tall they are. The answer will come in stones and pounds, and in feet and inches. I remember that great proponent of metric weights and measure, Tony Blair, being caught out in exactly that way in a discussion on the issue.

If someone was to tell me their weight in kilograms it would mean nothing to me, likewise their height in meters and centimetres, tell me in stones and pounds and feet and inches and I will immediately have a mental reference point I can use.

[Jaded]

But what is your weight in metres?

[Cudzoziemiec]

Is it more than your height in kilounces?

[Mr Larrington]

Clandy: for the modernity-challenged, "two and a quarter pounds of jam / weigh about a kilogram!" 

<Paxman>

Are you seriously suggesting that jam can come in big pots?

</Paxman>

I have learned today that the price of a Sony wireless internet dongle is this: fucking horrendous.  My Netgear one cost less than that and came with a wireless router thrown in.

[bobb]

On the other hand it's the kilogram, which still means nothing to me. Talk in pounds and ounces and I will have reference.

I didn't realise you were that old. I remember using metric measures at school when I was spending shillings, tanners, threepenny bits, halfpennies & half-crowns (lot of money, that).

Ask anyone in this country how much they weigh or how tall they are. The answer will come in stones and pounds, and in feet and inches. I remember that great proponent of metric weights and measure, Tony Blair, being caught out in exactly that way in a discussion on the issue.

If someone was to tell me their weight in kilograms it would mean nothing to me, likewise their height in meters and centimetres, tell me in stones and pounds and feet and inches and I will immediately have a mental reference point I can use.

Not strictly true. Lots of people here talk about their weight in kilograms. I personally don't, but that's just the way I am. All medical assessments are done in metric units these days for example.

When I worked as an engineer and got sent some leftpondian kit that wasn't documented in SI units, I'd send it straight back and put my feet up until they sorted it out.

We have a glorious relationship with measurement systems in this country 

[Mr Larrington]

We have a glorious relationship with measurement systems in this country 

Absolutely

[Bledlow]

On the other hand it's the kilogram, which still means nothing to me. Talk in pounds and ounces and I will have reference.

I didn't realise you were that old. I remember using metric measures at school when I was spending shillings, tanners, threepenny bits, halfpennies & half-crowns (lot of money, that).

Ask anyone in this country how much they weigh or how tall they are. The answer will come in stones and pounds, and in feet and inches.

Not always, not in my experience. For example, Mrs B has no idea what stones are, & has not found in the 15 years since she first came to the UK that people do not understand her weight in kg. I'm not sure how much I weigh in stones & pounds (I have to work it out), & I've found I'm not alone. I know my height in feet & inches, but that hasn't changed since the early 1970s, so it's not hard.

If someone was to tell me their weight in kilograms it would mean nothing to me, likewise their height in meters and centimetres, tell me in stones and pounds and feet and inches and I will immediately have a mental reference point I can use.

So? Are you proud of your ignorance? You seem to be. What a peculiar attitude.

[Kim]

Ask anyone in this country how much they weigh or how tall they are. The answer will come in stones and pounds, and in feet and inches.

Not true.  While I'm vaguely aware of my height in feet and inches for translation purposes, I'll think and generally answer in metres, unless I'm paying attention and realise the person's only likely to be able to think in feet.  I've no concept of my (or anyone else's) weight might be in anything other than newtonskilograms.

If someone were to tell me their weight in stones it would mean nothing to me, likewise their height in feet and inches.  Tell me in metres and kilograms and I will immediately have a mental reference point I can use.  Otherwise I have to pause for a maths break.

[Cudzoziemiec]

 A person's height should be expressed as a proportion of the Gog-magog Hills,
their weight as a factor of Halfords BSOs
and their stomach volume in terms of cake.

Anythng else is meaningless.