• none@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 months ago

    Unless you happen to be 2 meters tall, yes, you would give your height in cm. You might round it, but you’d never say you’re 1.8m tall.

      • ripcord@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Never ask why never.

        Not when it comes to height measurement.

        …Not when it comes to height measurement.

      • Instigate@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        Where I’m from, some people will still use feet/inches only for heights of human beings (weird, I know), but the most common response is in cm. For instance, if you asked me how tall I am I’d say 173cm, but I would say it like “I’m about a hundred and seventy-three” or “one-seven-three” - you don’t really have to say the units. Much the same as you’d say “I’m five foot seven” and you don’t need to specify “inches”.

      • zout@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        6 months ago

        Well, where I live, 1,85 m is less than average height, 1,90 m is more than average. It’s also a noticable difference, especially if you’re in the same height range.

      • Ephera
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Well, if someone asks you about it, they’d like to hear a more precise number. They can easily estimate your height at a precision of 10cm.

    • psud@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      1.8 is too imprecise. It includes both 1.80 and 1.89. do you think it’s fine to approximate your height to the nearest 4 inches?

      Why ever would a 6’ 2" person bother with the 2"?