January 2017

M T W T F S S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16 171819202122
23242526272829
3031     

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Tuesday, July 20th, 2010 07:07 pm
I'm really trying to figure out what happened here:

My best guess (which still seems crazy) is that the person designing these measuring cups looked up a conversion factor from ounces to metric and from cups to metric, and the two factors were rounded differently, so they decided to put both (different!) scales on the cup.

It's amazing how much less that makes me trust the thing. What else did they get horribly wrong? (And how did this ever get past any sort of quality control?)

Edit: Oh, hey, just ask Wikipedia. Apparently, the people making this measuring cup decided that the people using it in the US where it's being sold would surely intend to use "metric cups" (250 ml). A customary US cup is about 237 ml. Strangely, the legal definition (for nutrition labeling) of one cup in the US is 240 ml. Meanwhile, an Imperial cup is 284 ml. A Japanese cup is 200 ml, which for some reason differs from the traditional Japanese "gō" which measures 180 ml (all of which explains why the cups that come with rice cookers are so confusing).
Thursday, July 22nd, 2010 09:21 pm (UTC)
More argumentation for just converting everything to metric and having done with it.