Thanks. The comments on the American version weren't so much about the centimeters, but many felt the formulas were (way) off. The best American comment: "If it can't be seen from outer space, it needs MORE LIGHTS."
--- On Tue, 12/11/12, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: [USMA:52069] Re: The Mathematical Formula For The Perfectly Decorated Christmas Tree To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2012, 12:47 AM This article was on the US site as well: http://gizmodo.com/5966251/the-mathematical-formula-for-the-perfectly-decorated-christmas-tree On Sun, Dec 9, 2012, at 21:19, Kilopascal wrote: I would have to say that the sparsity of a tree decorations depends on personal taste and I would agree with you as I like a tree overflowing with lights and ornaments. Maybe there should be a control factor in the formula to account for those who want their trees lightly decorated, medium decorated or heavily decorated. The article is somewhat strange in that it turned a story on decorating a tree into a diatribe of anti-metric hatred. The author is Andrew Liszewski, obviously of Polish ancestry. The web address is from Australia, which is funny because who in Australia would harbour such hatred or consider the metric system "new-fangled". So, it would seem that Andrew is an American and the Australians just used the article as it was. Somehow, they should have edited out the anti-metric crap. It seems the Australian commentors too are confused by the metric hatred, one even noticing the hatred originates in the US. [USMA:52059] The Mathematical Formula For The Perfectly Decorated Christmas Tree John M. Steele Sun, 09 Dec 2012 04:28:17 -0800 A tale of three cultures? Some guys in the UK claim to have developed a formula for perfectly decorating the Xmas tree, lights, tinsel, ornaments, and angel or star based on the height of the tree. This article was published by Gizmodo Australia. As Australia is metric, I would expect them to appreciate that the formula is based on the tree's height in centimeters. But the author goes off in this strange rant about metric. I assume he might be American and this was originally published in the US. http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2012/12/the-mathematical-formula-for-the-perfectly-decorated-christmas-tree/ "Since the geniuses behind the formula hail from the UK and embrace that new-fangled metric system, you’ll need to know the height of your tree in centimetres." The comments section doesn't seem to appreciate his lack of love for metric. Oddly, no one comments on the formulas. The tree seems seriously under-decorated to me. Also, I would expect the formulas to consider the breadth of the tree at the bottom, and depend on the surface area of a cone approximating the tree
