577

temperature (mander.xyz)

submitted 8 months ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/science_memes@mander.xyz

382 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[+] imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works -41 points 8 months ago

A) Fahrenheit has an appropriate level of granularity for humans

B) Fahrenheit has an intuitive frame of reference for humans

Celsius and Kelvin do not.

I don't want to fight about this I just think it's actually true, and I also think Europeans get insanely defensive about stuff like this for no reason.

[-] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 16 points 8 months ago

A) Fahrenheit has an appropriate level of granularity for humans

B) Fahrenheit has an intuitive frame of reference for humans

true.

Celsius [...] do not.

false.

Europeans get insanely defensive about stuff like this for no reason.

Be forewarned that I am willing to die on this hill, and any challenges to my position will result in increasingly large walls of text until you have conceded the point 😤

...

[+] imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works -16 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Thoughts?

spoiler

Generally -40 to 40 are the extremes of livable areas.

Sure, water is a really good system and it works well.

And for F that range is -40 to 104. See how you get 64 extra degrees of precision and nearly all of them are double digit numbers? No downside.

Furthermore F can use its base 10 system to describe useful ranges of temperature such as the 20s, 60s, etc. So you have 144 degrees instead of just 80, and you also have the option to utilize a more broad 16 degree scale that’s also built in.

You might say that Celsius technically also has an 8 degree scale(10s, 30s), but I would argue that the range of 10 degrees Celsius is too broad to be useful in the same way. In order to scale such that 0C is water freezing and 100C boiling, it was necessary for the units to become larger and thus the 10C shorthand is much less descriptive than the 10F shorthand, at least for most human purposes.

[-] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 10 points 8 months ago

copy pasting now are we? here was my response to the same copied comment:

but I would argue that the range of 10 degrees Celsius is too broad to be useful in the same way.

As you might imagine I completely disagree.

For my purposes 20's, 30's, negative 10's and so on is perfectly good, and I would describe my purposes as human.

Again, this is based on your, and my, learned reference points. Of course you feel the scale of the farenheit is better suited for describing your life, those are your learned reference points.

I have my own learned reference points based on the Celsius scale I grew up with and, suprise suprise, to me they're superior.