You must log in or register to comment.

sysadminbj t1_j61nunb wrote

Literally everyone that contracts for the federal government should bow to the master of wasting time and money.

Well played, JQA.


iamveryDerp OP t1_j61psrr wrote

He took up gardening while serving as President, essentially because he was old school and believed the president should not be involved with legislation.


Rock_man_bears_fan t1_j61tz3z wrote

I mean he was the 6th president. Is he really “old school” if you can count the number of previous presidents on one hand?


iamveryDerp OP t1_j61v88f wrote

Compared to what A Jackson was bringing on, he was very old school at the time.


Rock_man_bears_fan t1_j61vroc wrote

Forgot about the “damn the Supreme Court” president lol


TacoS4Me-69-420 t1_j635rl2 wrote

the last good president 🤧


Secret_Ad_1506 t1_j639b7v wrote



TacoS4Me-69-420 t1_j63ag13 wrote

jackson destroyed the second bank of the united states, which was trying to turn the united states into the pseudo-monarchy that it is today.


Secret_Ad_1506 t1_j63cas5 wrote

Hah, that’s actual lunacy. Andrew Jackson literally caused the panic of 1837 by ending the regulations the 2nd bank had.

Also, he kickstarted the trail of tears?


TacoS4Me-69-420 t1_j63f6w8 wrote

> Andrew Jackson literally caused the panic of 1837 by ending the regulations the 2nd bank had.

this line of reasoning could be used very ably to justify keeping actual dictators in power, im pretty sure it having absolutely no congressional oversight and its supporters in congress electing to keep it that way was what cause the panic, not the guy getting rid of it.

> Also, he kickstarted the trail of tears?

helluva lot better than what they did to themselves


EristicTrick t1_j6bu4nq wrote

Your worldview is fucked and your linked source is pathetic. Go defend genocide somewhere else.


RandoCalrissian11 t1_j61r45y wrote

The President shouldn’t.


bak3donh1gh t1_j626hhw wrote

Theres a ton of things your system should or shouldn't be doing. At this point the only way anything gets done is if the president does something along the way. Not including signing it, obviously.


RandoCalrissian11 t1_j634a3v wrote

The President has no real say on the matter. It takes a literal act of Congress, and there’s no reason for it so don’t expect them to work on it.

Daylight savings though, which also requires congress to act, should be rectified immediately.


bak3donh1gh t1_j64m5r1 wrote

No say yes, but sway he does have. As long as R have congress nothing gets done. D have it little gets done, half the reason is that not enough D have a seat, the other half is money.


RandoCalrissian11 t1_j64sf0e wrote

You really don’t understand politics at all, do you? None of what you said is true in the slightest.


bak3donh1gh t1_j658bto wrote

Umm, what US have you been watching? It's run by money, has been for a while, plenty of US oligarchs. The R whine and complain about the deficit when not in power, but run it up when they gain control, stonewall if they can any progress, so they can say the goverment doesn't work and then regulatory capture any agency they can, so they can privatize it and get kickbacks.

The democrats don't follow lock and step, so when they do get in control, very little gets done. Not to mention they are also all getting rich off insider information just like the R. Some of them care, one man in particular, but most of them just pay lip service. Not to mention all the gerrymandering that's fucking legal in the US.

The President doesn't have control over what laws get passed, yes, that is what I have said. But he can come out publicly for or against something. Influencing public opinion. He can also talk privately with senators and make deals, he obviously can wield power over what happens in the house and senate, but he certainly doesn't control either. Especially with more and more wackos being elected to the house.

Or do you think the United States of America has made a lot of progress in the last few decades? You're a fool if you do. It's one or two elections away from a dictatorship.


RandoCalrissian11 t1_j65dsx8 wrote

Well, with your expanded explanation we agree more, but I do disagree that the Dems get anything done. They surely pretend to, then it silently goes away or gets completely dismantled because it’s unreasonable.


HarryHacker42 t1_j65gv1b wrote

The President should be lobbying lawmakers to do things for the American people who elected him/her.


Business-Emu-6923 t1_j634usi wrote

This isn’t true though.

Spending a lot of one man’s time figuring out it would be too much effort ultimately saves everyone the hassle. A lot of government work involves researching, in painful detail, exactly how much of a ball-ache a change will be, and often the answer is “don’t do it”, so the government don’t do it. It’s time we’ll spent.

Why they got the President to do the research I have no idea!


iamveryDerp OP t1_j61tkhr wrote

IIRC, he took no payment for the report. It was a passion project.
He did most of the research on his own time, which is one of the reasons it took so long, and he honestly thought it would be his literary legacy, which is why it was so unnecessarily detailed.


buttergun t1_j63qbja wrote

I'm pretty sure it was just an elaborate prank by the Van Buren Boys to keep JQA occupied with hundreds of frivolous correspondences about what can and can not be measured with the metric system.


BaltimoreBadger23 t1_j61oe6g wrote

The only president to serve in Congress after his presidential term. He was a great lawyer, a great Secretary of State, a great Congressman, and a crappy president.


TwihardTeamEdward t1_j61rivw wrote

A pretty great person for the standards of his time as well. He was staunchly anti-slavery.


davtruss t1_j62voed wrote

It is a travesty that he and his father don't collectively merit an Adams Monument.


TacoS4Me-69-420 t1_j63617c wrote

itd just get removed or vandalised by antifa or minorities, so really why bother.


iamveryDerp OP t1_j61ukc2 wrote

Hard to say he was a crappy president because he was more famous for what he didn’t do. Serving at the close of the Era of Good Feelings, he is hailed as the original realist attempting to keep the peace. “[America] goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy.”
As a principal author of the Monroe doctrine, he was attempting to stay true to that document, and quietly stay in her hemisphere, so to speak.
He was also caught between two times. From the old school style he kept most of the previous cabinet appointments upon being elected, and therefore faced tremendous opposition within his own office, while simultaneously refusing to take part in the newer, populist, muck-raking style of politics being brought on by Andrew Jackson.
Someone put it best that he was a great man in the right place at the wrong time, or something like that.

Edit: I would agree, however, that in perspective of his career as a whole, the 4 years he was President were the most idle, ineffectual and boring years of his amazing life.


davtruss t1_j62vtsk wrote

If you consider how deplorably the great leaders we honor sometimes behaved (Adams vs. Jefferson for instance), maybe boring was a good thing at times.


PeachSnappleOhYeah t1_j624jvt wrote

3.5 years that's like 5 years in metric


JudgeArthurVandelay t1_j650xv5 wrote

One year=10 months One month= 10 weeks One week=10 days One day=100 hours One hour=100 minutes One minute=100 seconds

Did I do it right?


gravi-tea t1_j61owfh wrote

Answer these questions without looking them up:

  1. How many feet in a mile?
  2. What temp in Farenheit does water boil?
  3. How many ounces in 15 pounds?
  4. How many square feet in an acre?

Yeah we probably shoulda switched 😆


jwgronk t1_j61pb4k wrote

  1. 5280
  2. 212
  3. 16x15=240
  4. I hate you

BK4K2 t1_j61r44v wrote

Not sure about the first three, but everyone agrees in the 4th answer.


smithsp86 t1_j638n63 wrote

5280, 212 at sea level, 240, and 43560. Not hard if you remember that an acre is just a furlong by a chain.


gravi-tea t1_j63h0lh wrote

Nice job!

I'm curious how knowing the acre/furlong relationship helps with knowing square feet per acre? Is it just that you have memorized there are 43,5602 square feet in a furlong and divide by 10?

I actually find imperial units and stuff fun and interesting. Recently I was doing some personal land surveying and re-learning the relationship between acreage and square miles. Such as forty acres being equivalent to a quarter mile square.

Interesting and explains why large parcels of land often consist of multiples of 40.


smithsp86 t1_j63rhix wrote

A furlong is 1/8th of a mile and a chain is 66 feet. So it's just a matter of doing a bit of multiplication. Chain is a super useful measure because most surveying measures are whole multiples of a chain.

The biggest hangup most metric people have with imperial units is conversion factors but once you learn those it's not difficult to use them. My favorite example is tea spoons in a gallon. Yeah it's not immediately intuitive but it's not difficult to figure out if you actually needed to know for some reason. Four quarts to the gallon, four cups to the quart, sixteen tablespoons to the cup, three teaspoons to the tablespoon. Just do a bit of simple multiplication and you're done.


gravi-tea t1_j63sjxr wrote

Interesting. Yeah totally. I recall having to do such calculations when fermenting stuff like hot sauce and kombucha.

Like you said it's not bad once you are familiar with the converssions. And some math would also have to be done if one was cooking in metric - but those calculations would likely just be a little simpler and quicker.


Spicy_Cum_Lord t1_j61rv6s wrote

How often do you need to know, off hand, how many feet are in an acre?


MikemkPK t1_j61v5o2 wrote

When buying real estate. Houses are measured in square feet, the land they're on in acres.


Spicy_Cum_Lord t1_j627hbw wrote

So you buy real estate without doing any cursory research?


HeippodeiPeippo t1_j634rsw wrote

Asks for an example and then does... this.

A lot of things are measured in inches but need to be converted to yards and miles. For ex, how many bolts you need for a span. The idea that you don't need to ever convert is just stupid and shows that the person has never had to work measuring anything.


MikemkPK t1_j627sry wrote

No, I'm giving a situation where converting in your head is useful. Say you see an ad for a 4000 sq ft house on 0.1 acre, being able to convert lets you know it's not worth the time to look at.


PreciousRoi t1_j628dbf wrote

If you are a housebuyer and you cannot visualize what an acre looks like without doing math in your head...


KA_Mechatronik t1_j62zdd4 wrote

I can't visualize what an acre looks like because I don't know how much land a yoke of oxen pulling a wooden plough can plough in a single day.


PreciousRoi t1_j62zjm3 wrote

I mean, you can look at a few acre or half acre lots, which I'd assume a prospective homebuyer would, and have a pretty good idea of how big of a house you'd want to plop down on it.


gravi-tea t1_j643dnx wrote

I agree it becomes pretty easy to visualize once you have an idea of what a half acre or acre looks like.

But when you want to actually do the math, for example figuring out how long the driveway will be if putting a 50x50 shed on a half acre plot. It's not as simple as it could be.

I recently relearned stuff like how wide a forty acre square plot of land is (1/4 mile). I have an 80 acre property that is 1/2 mile x 1/4 mile. Interesting to know.


Spicy_Cum_Lord t1_j628cl8 wrote

That's only 300 sq feet of yard to mow. Which is likely a small apartment building in the middle of a city. Something you'd know by you know, looking at it.

I specifically said off hand. Knowledge you need when you don't have a globally connected super computer in your pocket.


gravi-tea t1_j61uyrv wrote

Not too often. But recently was wondering how many miles across my 80 acres of land is.


Rock_man_bears_fan t1_j61u5px wrote

When was the last time the answer to any of these questions were relevant to you?


gravi-tea t1_j61w70w wrote

Not too often. Last time was not long ago tho when I was wondering how many square miles my 80 acre woods is. And how far it was from one side to the other. The answer is actually a half mile since 40 acres is 1/4 mile square. So not too hard to remember but I didn't know at the time.

But that's why land is divided that way to begin with - 40 acres being 1/4 mile square.


gravi-tea t1_j63lby2 wrote

The times that the imperial system has actually most annoyed me in life was when cooking certain things (fermentations for example) and having to deal with how many teaspoons in a 1/4 cup or how many cups in a gallon, etc. It wasn't too bad, but had to re-familiarize with conversions.


RandoCalrissian11 t1_j61rq1s wrote

Answer these questions without looking them up:

  1. How many Kilometers in a mile?
  2. what temp in Celsius does mercury boil?
  3. How many milligrams in 15lbs?
  4. How many square meters in a 3.75 acre plot?

No reason to switch. It works great and doesn’t need to change.

Asking questions that are only relevant in a specific circumstance means nothing.


gravi-tea t1_j61sxgi wrote

Heres the equivalent metric system questions:

  1. How many meters in a kilometer? 1,000
  2. What temp in C does water boil? 100°
  3. How many grams in 15 kilograms? 15,000
  4. How many square meters in a hectare? 10,000

I knew the answer to all of those and I live in the US. For the imperial system questions I only knew 2 off the top of my head.

Another fun fact there are 100 hectares in square kilometer. How any acres in a square mile? I have no fucken idea!

All that said I'm not saying we should switch. We already use metric for science and other necessary applications and hey imperial is kinda fun.


smithsp86 t1_j638t09 wrote

There are 640 acres in a square mile


gravi-tea t1_j63h9oo wrote

Yup! thanks, I actually realized I prob knew this one too as I've been delving into learning about acreage and such lately. Fun stuff.


RandoCalrissian11 t1_j633m65 wrote

That’s not really equivalent. A kilometer isn’t equivalent to a mile. The equivalent would be how many feet in 1000ft. Surly you can answer that. Imperial is just as easy when you use the equivalent ratios. It really doesn’t matter which system you use in every day life.

In situations where you need to convert back and forth mentally a lot it’s easier, but that’s such a small portion of the time it’s negligible.


ConjureWolf t1_j63pq8s wrote

>That’s not really equivalent. A kilometer isn’t equivalent to a mile.

There is no way a person can be this stupid to not understand why what they said is the equivalent of the original statement, if you're not trolling I feel fucking terrible for you.


RedstripeRhapsodyHP t1_j63598c wrote

> That’s not really equivalent.

Yes, they are. The questions above are the metric equivalents of what was asked for originally in customary units, you inexplicably asked a completely different, unrelated set that required mixed units. The point is that if you use metric you don't need customary at all.

Imperial is not just as easy, because someone unfamiliar to the system cannot make any assumptions about feet in a yard, or yards in a mile.

>The equivalent would be how many feet in 1000ft.

I think you are really close to grasping the point here - metric is better because each unit scales easily with the previous one. The relationship between a meter and a kilometre is obvious, that is not true of feet vs miles. A yard is to a mile as a metre is to a kilometre, except the latter is far more intuitive.


RandoCalrissian11 t1_j63b7q0 wrote

No. The original question is how many feet are in a mile. The equivalent would be how many meters in a mile. You can’t change the distance so make your argument sound right, leave the distance the same and try to support your argument. The argument fails.

You failed to grasp that. You were close though.


RedstripeRhapsodyHP t1_j63cjkz wrote

> The equivalent would be how many meters in a mile.

No, it wouldn't, because the entire argument is conversions within a system, not between systems. They aren't saying metric works better with customary, they are saying metric works better and so why use customary at all? This isn't hard to grasp - a yard is to a mile and a meter is to a kilometre - you don't mix them. The metric system means you don't need to know metres in a mile, because you wouldn't ever think or measure in terms of miles (you'd use kilometres). For instance, it is not a weakness of customary that miles do not have a clear relationship with hectares - they are separate systems not intended to be used together - the weakness is instead that miles have no clear relationship with acres.

Are you being deliberately disingenuous? Surely you understand miles have no place in the metric system, so you don't need to convert to them?


RandoCalrissian11 t1_j63hod4 wrote

A mile is an arbitrary distance we agreed to call a mile. It’s the exact same distance no matter what method of measurement you are using. So, if you use metric to measure that distance, it doesn’t help you at all. In day to day life being able to convert within a system really doesn’t matter, and even more so today when you can do it on your phone in seconds or via Alexa or the like.


RedstripeRhapsodyHP t1_j63lw9i wrote

You are either profoundly stupid, or trolling.

The point is that you wouldn't ever refer to miles. You would refer to kilometres. Being able to convert within a system is useful all the time, don't be ridiculous.


RandoCalrissian11 t1_j63zjcb wrote

You don’t need to refer to it as a mile, you only need to know how many meters are in it, which you don’t, thus proving knowing how many feet are in a mile really isn’t necessary in most applications.


4bsurd t1_j63d2ag wrote

That's not equivalent at all.


gravi-tea t1_j63kwl1 wrote

How many feet (standard small imperial unit of length) are in a mile (standard large imperial unit of length)?

The equivalent question using metric units would use two standard metric units of length ( i.e. meters and kilometers).


cmdrkyla t1_j61w6gi wrote

2 is the only reasonable comparison (without converting between 2 systems instead of using 1. And even than, who cares except very specific scientists what temperature mercury freezes at.


RandoCalrissian11 t1_j633r11 wrote

When do you need to know when water boils? Turn heat on high and wait. The temp water freezes is much more useful information and everyone knows that.

The rest are very equal comparisons.


HeippodeiPeippo t1_j634yg1 wrote

You are really... asking about CONVERSIONS BETWEEN METRIC AND IMPERIAL as the "gotcha" when someone asks about conversions IN IMPERIAL ONLY.

To make it fair, use ONLY metric, just like the original question did with imperial.

Come on, you can't be that stupid, can you?


RandoCalrissian11 t1_j63aru0 wrote

Your failure to miss the point is no example of my intelligence.

Your failure to see the relevance is your own and the reason you can’t grasp such a simple concept is why you don’t understand why things have no real reason to change.


HeippodeiPeippo t1_j63btq4 wrote

The irony here is just.. keep going dude, you are being hilarious.


atlantis_airlines t1_j61w8sz wrote

I'd be the last person to change to metric, but I'd be lying if I said there is no reason switch. I work for a company in the USA that has gets a lot of materials from Canada and Europe. It'd also save me a few seconds every time I did some arithmetic and depending on my station, that might be a lot.

I agree there's no need to change. But there's also no need to remain. Personal inconvenience aside, i'm more in favor or changing that remaining.


RandoCalrissian11 t1_j633ytj wrote

Sure there are some reasons to switch. The US military uses metric since they operate where most of the prod uses it, and things like Subs use British pipe threads because it’s much easier to get parts overseas. A world standard would make that easier, but nobody really agrees on an absolute standard. Each area has its own perks.


HeippodeiPeippo t1_j6355n8 wrote

>A world standard would make that easier, but nobody really agrees on an absolute standard.

No, the world has agreed a century ago. USA does not want to do it cause it is apparently so hard. That is the ONLY reason given, "it is difficult and it sucks during the transition period" so they kick the can to the next generation. Every generation so far has been too selfish to take on the task. THAT IS THE TRUTH. Laziness, selfishness and incompetence.


RandoCalrissian11 t1_j63b13u wrote

No country strictly uses metric. Each has their own quirks, and nobody really agrees on one absolute system. It’s all arbitrary, so it doesn’t really matter.

It’s not hard because it’s hard to understand, it’s hard because it’s expensive and has no real value in changing.


HeippodeiPeippo t1_j63bqmx wrote

>No country strictly uses metric.

Looks around in his Finnish apartment...

Nope, everything is metric, unless it is imported from USA. I mean, i have a bunch of imperial tools.. because some things are imperial because of USA but otherwise... I can not figure out what isn't metric.

>And nobody really agrees on one absolute system. It’s all arbitrary, so it doesn’t really matter.

SI units. You really are one of the most ignorant muricans or you are trolling. And of fucking course it matters. It costs YOU money to NOT convert, and it actually cost US money because YOU don't want to change. Like i said, i have to have some tools twice, just because ONE country, 5% of the world does not change. UK has a mess too, that is an EXCEPTION.

>It’s not hard because it’s hard to understand, it’s hard because it’s expensive and has no real value in changing.

It cost you money every single day and you have to change one day. It is just that YOU don't want to do it because you are selfish and lazy. I remember this one dude talking about doing things because they are hard. Wonder where that fellow came from, which country's president said that.. You just do not want to because it is too hard for you, let the next generation deal with it.


atlantis_airlines t1_j65at1b wrote

Actually it does have value in changing. Even in my job alone we'd actually save a considerable amount of time and money using metric.


M00NGRAPHIX t1_j61o19b wrote

Yes. Think about the present instead of the future. Foolproof method.


TacoS4Me-69-420 t1_j636d00 wrote

to be fair... the united states was meant to be a temporary entity till they got their shit figured out.


wwarnout t1_j61ylxx wrote

Colossal mistake.


DaveOJ12 t1_j61otp0 wrote

Were you inspired by this post from earlier today?


iamveryDerp OP t1_j61pxyx wrote

Yes. That and the fact that I’m in the middle of a JQA biography.


kalel1980 t1_j61w83a wrote

John Quincy Adams you sly mofo.


aesemon t1_j63a1g6 wrote

I mean if he had spent more then 18 months on it he might have come up with a better answer.


InterPunct t1_j61x0l1 wrote

The Imperial system is our underappreciated homage to our English cousins.


chlomor t1_j62l7te wrote

Are US customary units and the imperial system not different? I’m pretty sure an imperial gallon for example is 10-20% larger than a US gallon.


yasunadiver t1_j68urnq wrote

Yes, the US standardized on its own system before the British empire. Though there were some efforts made to standardize between both later on, most notably the "industrial inch" which was an agreement between US and UK during WW2 to standardize on a metric based inch (2.54 cm exactly).


pbmm1 t1_j62l2qx wrote

I mean what action could they have taken


dickcheeseaioli t1_j65nocm wrote

Yeah they ignored his paper on why not to switch, but they still didn’t switch?


iPod3G t1_j642msv wrote

The system obviously was confusing to him if it took him 3.5 years.


Gooseloff t1_j657er4 wrote

That’s kind of ironic because I would think that changing to metric when the nation is young would be WAY easier than doing it later. Even doing now would arguably not be that big of a deal but I can’t imagine it would have been “too difficult” when the nation was, like, 15 states.


davtruss t1_j62vigj wrote

Well this explains why the renewed push during the 1970s and 80s to adopt the metric system in the U.S. failed colossally. Somehow I became convinced as a child that understanding the metric system made me look clever, but that was before I realized most of the world had already adopted it.


Moosetappropriate t1_j61zg92 wrote

Just shows that America has never brought their best and brightest to government.


HeippodeiPeippo t1_j634kj2 wrote

It is incredible how incompetent an entire nation can be. Everyone else could do it but USA can't. It is amazing that no one has to bottlefeed them and change their nappies. "Nah, its too difficult, lets give up this not-at-all a hard thing". Nation of quitters.