Canadian here. People over ~60 are more familiar with miles, ounces and gallons. Two generations ago was the last time they were mainstream. They tore down all the signs demarcated in miles in the 1970s. I know what they are, of course -- both the historical British Imperial units used here, and the American units. (They're different for volume! A Canadian or British gallon is about 4.1 litres, an American gallon about 3.8. So much for universal.)

I never use these units, other than in fixed expressions like "it goes on for miles". I think exclusively in metres for attempting to measure the length of anything, especially if I'm trying to be exact. Millimetres to metres to kilometres is all automatic. I don't actually know how big a yard is, other than knowing it's very slightly shorter than a metre. A foot is about 30 cm, that's how I know how big a foot is. I'd need to look at a conversion chart to tell you whether I need a t-shirt or a light jacket for 76 °F. I just know it's somewhere vaguely above freezing but not intolerably hot.

For my generation the units still in use are mostly limited to pounds (mostly for people's weight and produce), feet and inches (particularly for people's height), and cups, Farenheit and tablespoons in recipes. I've noticed even those are disappearing slowly. After a long period of dual labelling with $ per lb being larger on the sign, some stores now have $ per kg larger than the $ per lb. My mother was quite consternated when she first encountered packaging only in $ per kg a few years ago. Her generation was raised on the traditional units and switched in their teens and 20s and have been, understandably, confused by the metric units ever since. To her, a metre is thought of in terms like slightly longer than a yard. The metric units are alien and unnatural to her in the same way the traditional ones are to me.

In several provinces, they teach the American units to students as part of the curriculum. Again. After systematically excising every mention of traditional units 40 years ago. Being familiar with American units helps with trade and understanding American literature. That wasn't necessary for my generation (I could just ask my parents or an older coworker what a quart was!) but it might be now.

> It's a language developed to be used as an international standard by people across all languages and cultures.

Not really. It's not like it was developed by a universal consortium. It was created by a European guy and it draws primarily from Indo-European & Germanic languages. It's foreign to someone who isn't already well-acquainted with an Indo-European or Germanic language.

By contrast, most metric units as currently defined are relevant to most people across the globe. For instance, water boils at around 70-80c in Nepal, but most countries have some population that lives around sea level.

It's not that simple. Language difficulty isn't just about familiarity of vocabulary but also complexity of grammar. Some languages are just easier to learn regardless of shared vocabulary. Indonesian and Swahili, despite not having much shared vocabulary with Western languages, are well known to be among the easiest of natural languages to learn. I'm a native English speaker and have studied French, Spanish, German, Indonesian, Esperanto, and Mandarin and found Esperanto and Indonesian by far the easiest despite German (and maybe French due to the Norman Conquest) being both closer to English.

The foreignness is still an issue even if it's easier to learn than other Indo-European or Germanic languages. If the intention is to get everyone in the world on board, but only 2 of the major language families are represented, it could feel a lot like colonialism to those whose languages aren't represented.

> For instance, water boils at around 70-80c in Nepal

That's not completely false, but it quite misleading.

It's true that the boiling point on the top of Everest at just under 9000m is just under 70C. The boiling point only drops to 80C at 6000m, which is very high even for Nepal.

But the average elevation of Nepal is just over 3000m, where the boiling point is just under 90C. Kathmandu is at 1400m, with a boiling point around 95C. And the low point in Nepal is less than 100m above sea level, where the boiling point is pretty close to 100C.

That kinda misses my point, but thanks for the extra details.

So if it is easier to produce steam at high elevation does it mean power generation would be more efficient?

> Not a troll at all. It's a language developed to be used as an international standard by people across all languages and cultures.

Well then it is nothing like the metric system, which was developed by French scientists to get rid of the multitude of units bearing the same name with different definitions depending on location, and with stupid multiples. Which was then further rationalised and made into an international standard. So yeah, the analogy was either woefully uninformed, or a troll.

If you want to nitpick, US is not using the imperial system, but the US Customary (and is indeed the only country doing that).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_customary_units

It is a troll because the friction from learning and communicating in a new language is in no way comparable to switching units of measurements. Units of measurements can easily be converted from one to the other, you can slowly transition over decades, etc. Also switching to metric is solving a bunch of conversion problems, while Esperanto is somewhat solving a problem but not really.

I have been and lived on several continents. In my experience the metrics system is a widely used de facto and de jure standard taught in schools around the world.

Despite all of Esperanto's qualities, I am yet to bump into a fluent speaker in the flesh.

Stating they are similar seems like a troll to me.