Once there will be no more digits to use for displaying price per gallon they will be forced to display price per liter as it still could fit

  • fake@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    2·
    1 day ago

    Argh. Miles per gallon makes me angry enough. And then you’ve got the metric using proto americans using km/L like that makes any sense.

    • TranquilTurbulence@lemmy.zipEnglish
      11·
      1 day ago

      Fun fact: that’s not the only non-linear unit out there. Like, the Mohs scale and all the various gauge units Americans love. Lots of fun units out there.

      All of it makes sense if you want to screw around with people. For example, this figure went from 20 to 15 while that one went from 50 to 45. It’s the same difference, right? Who needs linear units when you can have confusion units.

        • fake@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          2·
          21 hours ago

          L/km, or L/100km practically because it puts the litre value in a useful range for comparison.

          50mpg =  4.7L/100km
45mpg =  5.2
20mpg = 11.7
10mpg = 23.5
 9mpg = 26.1
        • TranquilTurbulence@lemmy.zipEnglish
          1·
          2 hours ago

          Linear units follow the format [what you give]/[what you get]. That format makes comparison easier. With non-linear units a 1% change can be negligible or huge depending on where you’re at the scale. Linear units are always very clear regardless of where it’s used.

          If your fuel consumption drops from 6 l/100km to 5 l/100km, it’s exactly as useful as the drop from 16 l/100km to 15 l/100km. Try that with mpg, and you’ll see how deceptive those numbers are.

          Edit: That 1% stuff was wrong. The argument would have made sense if I had written something like 1 unit change can be negligible or huge.

          • Kairos@lemmy.today
            2·
            14 hours ago

            I don’t get how the change between 5 and 6 (47 to 39mpg) is the same as 15 and 16 (16 to 15mpg). One is a much smaller change than the other.

            I always just think stuff like 30 mpg means a full 10gal tank can go 300 miles.

            • TranquilTurbulence@lemmy.zipEnglish
              2·
              2 hours ago

              Let’s say you drive the a 300 mile distance with two cars. First one does 45 mpg and the other one does 40. Seems like a small difference, and it is. Once you reach the destination, and compare how much money you spent on gas, the difference is probably something like 3.6 dollars.

              Next, you do the same trip with a different set of cars: 20 and 25 mpg. That was a small difference, right? Not any more. At the end of the trip you compare the receipts and find that it’s a 13.2 dollar difference now.

              As gas is the material being consumed and miles is what you get in return, having them in the mi/gal configuration implies you should care a lot more about the miles. However, the distance you need to drive usually isn’t something you think about that much. Instead, people care much more about how much you have to spend on gas. The volume of gas connects with how much you end up spending, and that’s why you should put it on top, not below.

              If gas was nearly free, an all you cared about is distance, mpg would be ideal.

          • Kairos@lemmy.today
            2·
            14 hours ago

            Both this and miles per gallon are linear.

            Edit: A 1% change is THE SAME no matter where you are on both. A 1% increase in miles per gallon is a (100/101) times [decrease] in gallons per mile (which is linearly convertible to l/100km). What you did is two different % changes.