A proposal for a new SI unit of measure for kilt addiction.

[sjrapid]

If I wander down the High Street, pop into a kilt maker's shop, buy a kilt, and then within the hour pop into the kilt shop at the other end of the street for another kilt, I could claim that I'm accumulating kilts at 17,520 per year. This then would give a 1.863 kH rating. Who's king of the mountain now?

Is it about being King of the Mountain?. I'm deeply envious if you have both two decent kiltmakers on your highstreet, and the financial wherewithal to go at that rate, however you measure it!

To not include longevity wrongly diminishes Hamish's achievement and falsely promotes those of us who are lesser mortals. Goals worthy of achievement should require us to strive.
brethren here?

Ah! I think I detect a note of competition here! With kilts you can count on one hand, I humbly yield to those with deeper addictions.

So, if I take this same extreme example and include what one might call Hamish time, then I think I get a more realistic rating:


Let:

k = number of kilts I own: 2

Hk = number of kilts Hamish owns: 76

t = time in years that I've owned kilts: 0.000114

Ht = time in years that Hamish has owned kilts (Hamish Time): 7.972

kt = rate that I claim to have acquired kilts per year: kt = k/t = 2 / 0.000114 = 17520

Hkt = rate that Hamish has acquired kilts per year: Hkt = Hk/Ht = 76 / 7.972 = 9.532

H = Hamish Rating (for Hamish this number is always 1)

Then my Hamish Rating is:

H = (kt/Hkt)*(t/Ht) = (17520/9.532)*(0.000114/7.972) = 0.026

By this method RiverKilt (55 kilts in 31 months) has a 0.723 Hamish rating. No small achievement that. I am a mere 52 mH by this method.

I like this idea as a set of modifications to the unit, but if you're going to weight for time, I wonder if you'd need to adjust for the total duration of ownership for each kilt not for the bulk. That would further enhance Hamish's glory, and diminish the newbies by comparison. Perhaps you'd like to propose a revision to the draft standard?

Best regards