brother, that's what a world view is lmao, do you not understand this concept?
Most of us don't really go anywhere outside of the US, the entire continental US is the literal equivalent of the collective EU. What do you want me to say? I literally don't need to leave to US to experience something geographically unique.
Geographically perhaps. But the cultural and historical unique is something you are going to miss out on by staying inside your own home country for your entire life. You think your US regional differences are the same as the differences between two countries, but anyone who has experienced different countries will tell you in an instant that that is not so.
i mean culturally in terms of outside of the continental US sure. There's plenty of interesting and unique culture within the US if you just go looking for it. Though a lot of it is going to be somewhat westernized in essence. If you want more eastern culture, obviously you're going to have to go farther east, but i feel like that's a given.
Because the minor diameter of the barrel is 5.56 mm and the major diameter is 5.69 mm. If the bullet were smaller than that then the propellant would blow past it. They didn't make a 'murican millimetre like they did with the imperial system.
I would make a bet that more mass shootings are done with 9mm. Depending on which shootings they consider 'mass' I see estimates from 60-80% for handgun usage. I'm sure the cheap .22 is a large number, but 9mm is probably right up there. There is a large bias in reporting the school shootings and shootings involving rifles by the media. They almost ignore the others.
In point of fact Americans have gotten impressive results out of far more complicated metrics than metric. It's not a matter of understanding, it's a matter of pride. And of not having to buy all new tools.
But mild and comfortable is different for different people who are acclimated to different weather.
We need a defined 'mild' temperature. i vote for 70F/21C.
It's a bit chilly for the warm weathered folks and a bit warm for the cold weathered folks. Seems reasonable but I'm open to suggestions.
I'd adjust it to 68/20 just so it lines up with whole numbers in both systems. And on second thought, make it 90 per degree Fahrenheit so any whole F or C value can convert to a whole number.
it needs to be a range, you can't really just have a single point, something like 50f to 70f would be good. Some people like a little below, some people like a little above, the 60s are generally pretty comfy all around though.
We also need to consider clothing as well. Which i do in this case.
For proof that this thread is just people justifying what they know as better somehow, look no further than Canada.
We do cooking temps in Fahrenheit, weather in Celsius. Human weights in pounds, but never pounds and oz. Food weights in grams, cooking weights in pounds and oz. Liquid volume in millilitres and litres, but cooking in cups, teaspoons and tablespoons. Speed & distance in kilometres, heights in feet and inches.
Try and give this any consistency and people will look at you like you’re fucked. The next town is 100km over, I’m 5ft 10in, a can of soda is 355ml, it’s 21c out and I have the oven roasting something at 400f. Tell me it’s 68f out and I will fight you.
People like what they are used to, and will bend over backwards to justify it. This becomes blatantly obvious when you use a random mix of units like we do, because you realize that all that matters is mental scale.
If Fahrenheit is “how people feel” then why are feet useful measurements of height when 90% of people are between 4ft and 6ft? They aren’t. You just know the scale in your head, so when someone says they’re 7ft tall you say “dang that’s tall”. That’s it.
According to James Hoffmann, the ideal temperature to enjoy coffee is between 50°C and 60°C, he may know a thing or two about coffee, and you may think the coffee you drink is hotter that it really is.
Is it? Only pure water will actually freeze at 0c. Rain, puddles, lakes, etc aren't all that pure... And we're talking about ambient air temps here. The air can be below freezing and it can still rain. And you can get snow/hail above freezing...
Knowing the freezing point is just one factor. Knowing it's generally around 30F is pretty much always close enough (not that remembering 32 is actually very difficult)
Edit: also water only freezes at 0c if it's at sea level... I really don't think 0°=freezing is the huge advantage that celcius stans think it is.
yeah, and let me know how accurate our weather models and prediction systems are. Can you calculate accurately how much the temperature in a specific part of the atmosphere will drop to a large updraft?
What's that? This is literally an entire career field of study and development? Oh that's weird.
Also the only real time this is relevant, is when things that have this weird property called thermal mass get below freezing, it's snowing in 30f weather? That's not sticking, the ground is too warm. or the sun will literally just melt it even if it is cold enough. Water? You mean that weird thing called like, a lake or river? Those get below freezing, without actively freezing, lakes won't even drop that much in terms of temperature, aside from the surface level. The surface may freeze, but even that is pretty variable.
Also yes, it's the arbitrary number of 32, so is literally every number though. We have 2 numbers to remember, you also have 2 numbers to remember, god forbid you have like, a password, or a passcode, or like, a numbers based lock somewhere. Humans have never been known to be good at memorizing short strings of data.
like idk how to tell you this, but, it's not that big of a deal?
Okay so fahrenheit has a well-defined high and low, but an arbitrary freezing point of one certain chemical. All other chemical freezing points are arbitrary.
Celsius has an arbitrary high and low, but a well-defined freezing point of that same chemical. All other freezing points are arbitrary.
If your motivation is to minimize the amount of arbitrary values you have to memorize, fahrenheit is the clear winner.
You're correct. In a lab setting, 0C and 100C are not arbitrary.
In the weather forecast, they are.
Which ties into your final point, it's hard to define a scale that is best for everything, which is exactly what I've been saying this whole time.
Fahrenheit is better for some things, Celsius for others.
The only reason people in this thread are saying otherwise is because for some reason they've tied up some significant part of their self-worth into their belief that "lmao DAE fahrenheit bad amirite??1?", and they mistakenly believe that those of us that understand nuance are trying to belittle or disparage them in some way. I assure you, we are not.
well i mean technically, the only reason they aren't arbitrary is because the mean something, the numbers arent significant, it's what they represent, which is the boiling/freezing point of water.
The only reason people in this thread are saying otherwise is because for some reason they’ve tied up some significant part of their self-worth into their belief that “lmao DAE fahrenheit bad amirite??1?”, and they mistakenly believe that those of us that understand nuance are trying to belittle or disparage them in some way. I assure you, we are not.
i'm seeing people put very little thought into the things they're saying, i just recently posted a comment covering a few of those things in this thread. For some reason europeans seem to just get absolutely brainfucked when presented with the concept of a unit system that isn't metric, it's like your literal entire lives are built upon the concept of 0 10 100 scaling, and you can't consider literally anything outside of it.
Now maybe i'm being a little hyperbolic here, but US peeps pretty well understand that we could just "be using celsius" that's not really a wacky concept or idea here. Celsius peeps really seem to think that if they had to use fahrenheit, they would probably die from accidental over-consumption of water, somehow. And in their defense, a lot of our shit is kinda fucking weird. But again, it's really not that bad.
at least, this has been my experience from the various threads i've been in on this topic over time.
100° F was human body temperature, later revised somewhat with better measurements and a decrease of parasites . The average person in those days in London had a slightly higher body temperature than today
0F is not ocean freezing, is the freezing temp of a brine mix that he chose arbitrarily (some think that he chose that temp because it was close to the coldest his town had ever been and he used it to calibrate the scales of his thermometers)
If that was true outsiders should be able to use Fahrenheit without much explanation. I've never got a clue what the °F values mean, I always have to use a converter. It's really not as intuitive as people who grew up with it seem to believe.
If that was true outsiders should be able to use Fahrenheit without much explanation. I’ve never got a clue what the °F values mean, I always have to use a converter. It’s really not as intuitive as people who grew up with it seem to believe.
because it's all relative, and you need to actually know how the temperatures relate to the things you're experiencing? I'm going to hazard a guess and say you're comfortable with using celsius? Oops cognitive bias. You would have to test this on someone who doesn't understand temperature yet. It just so happens that here in the US, it pretty conveniently lines up with those figures for us.
If your example cannot be proven on any existing person I'd argue it's hardly relevant to our reality.
°F most definitely isn't intuitive enough for people who aren't accustomed to it to use. If it is more intuitive at all, it's not to any meaningful degree.
If your example cannot be proven on any existing person I’d argue it’s hardly relevant to our reality.
possibly? Arguably you could still make the case that the existing range of 0-100f is more pleasant, and arguably nicer to use. But you would have to either find someone uniquely adapted to both systems, or you would have to do a lot of independent study on how humans interact with numbers and ranges of numbers. In order to find a specific answer it's going to be quite hard.
intuition is bullshit anyway, it's highly predicated on previous experience and an existing knowledge base, so i feel like that's kind of arguing "well a race car driver drives good, so why don't normal drivers drive good" kind of territory if you arent careful.
Yeah, which is why most people here in favor of Celcius argue that Fahrenheit isn't, in fact, more intuitive and therefore more suited to describe the weather. Both are arbitrary, both can be learned and used very easily, the only difference is what you're used to.
yeah, but i think arguing that celsius is "more intuitive" when the one primary advantage outside of science is that it lines up with water relatively nicely compared to fahrenheit, is like, ok.
32f and 212f and 0c and 100c aren't really all that substantially different as far as the general use case goes.
By that logic, Americans should use km/h instead of mph. Going 0-100 is much better than 0-60. For the same reason you keep telling us why Fahrenheit is so much more intuitive.
Sounds like a great time to propose my system of temperature: Super Celsius. I'll connect it to the freezing and boiling points of water just like Celsius, but while freezing remains at 0, boiling is now 1000. Get ready for a nice mild day of 250.
Once again... the classic argument of:
"Well, I grew up using this system, and I'm used to the system. I have built an internal intuition for how hot and cold the temperature is. I am used to >100 being hot! 40 is not hot!"
Well then. I grew up using celcius and... "IT'S FOURTY FUCKING ONE DEGREES OUTSIDE?" sounds just as hot.
it's not about what makes more sense: what makes more sense is what you use everyday and is natural to you. 40+ C is freaking hot because when you experience it, it's freaking hot.
It's about what the entire rest of the world is using as a standard.
In Ali Baba and the 40 Thieves, the number of thieves wasn't really necessarily 40. The number was likely just chosen because 40 was an exaggerated number, much like when we'd say "I've told you a hundred million times". So 40 as a shorthand for "a huge amount" seems fitting in celcius.
Fahrenheit literally meant to base the scale with 100 being human body temp.
It was later rescaled by Cavendish to put the freezing point of water at exactly 32 and boiling point at exactly 212, giving a nicely-divisible 180-degree separation between freezing and boiling. That shift is why body temperature is 98.6.
The Report of the Committee Appointed by the Royal Society to Consider of the Best Method of Adjusting the Fixed Points of Thermometers; And of the Precautions Necessary to Be Used in Making Experiments with Those Instruments
Seems fancy and legit, I see no reason to actually read it and confirm the info.
I'm pretty sure that wasn't actually Fahrenheit's intention, more a happy accident. Also if your body temp is 100°F then you're running a mild/moderate fever.
The scale was adjusted later to make freezing and boiling points land on exact numbers with an easily-divisible 180-dregrees between them (180 is divisible by 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 20, 36, 45, 60, and 90).
When you're a child having a sick-day, you get to stay home from school and watch TV, which is absolutely 💯. What temperature do you need to have to get a sick-day? 100°
In foreign units, 100° is the temperature at which water boils. What has boiling water ever done for anyone? Literally nothing. But in freedom units, water boils at 212°. 212 is a palindrome and palindromes are so cool, they could be classified as 💯. As we all know, 100 is the coolest number, which is why that's how high grades go.
Finally, using USA standards, calculating calories in food merely requires measuring how much energy is required to raise 3.5 oz water 1.8° F by burning the food and then dividing by 1000. Using your weird unpatriotic methods, you'd have to measure how much energy is required to raise 100 grams of water 1° C by burning the food and then not dividing by anything??? Sounds lame!
Someone give me a Gatorade, those mental gymnastics were a hell of a workout
riddle me this then mr european man (i assume for the context of shitposting)
would you feel ok with getting half of everything you did being completely wrong, or would you feel ok with only three of those 10 things being completely wrong.
half is formidable, like you tried, probably. 7/10 is on the way to being good at it though.
it's a question surrounding human bias on the subject of correctness. Most people would argue that 7/10 is "ok or good" where as most people would argue that 5/10 is "not the worst, but not good"
we're not fundamentally biased to the midpoint of something, we're fundamentally biased to the perceived average of something.
I love it when it's 50ish out and sunny. You don't get all sweaty, plus you can wear cozy socks and sweaters or just go out in short sleeves and both are perfectly fine. The bugs all start going into hiding at that temperature but the grass and leaves are still green
As a European I can perfectly feel the 0 degree. I step outside and 5 seconds later I can tell you if it's below zero or not.
For me "it's now really hot" in summer is exactly when it's over 30C. It being 86F doesn't make any more sense. Approximately above 35C I will avoid going outside. Which would be 95F, not 100.
From here, the temps in summer in the south of Europe are often around 100F at peak. Above or below doesn't matter.
All that Fahrenheit scale is good for is if you live in a continental climate, more to the south, e.g. some useless place like Oklahoma, where 0F is approximately year low, and 100F is approximately year high.
For all other places, where the temperature delta over the course of the year is not as extreme, this Fahrenheit scale is as unintuitive as celcius, e.g. you just get used to it.
For me “it’s now really hot” in summer is exactly when it’s over 30C. It being 86F doesn’t make any more sense. Approximately above 35C I will avoid going outside. Which would be 95F, not 100. From here, the temps in summer in the south of Europe are often around 100F at peak. Above or below doesn’t matter.
you guys need to stop converting directly between temperatures, you're right at 86f, bump it up to 90f and woah, suddenly it's actually a nice round number.
You're too conversion pilled to realize that the human experience isn't fundamentally and objectively representative. 1 degree celsius isn't super noticeable, just like 5 degrees fahrenheit isn't super noticeable either.
As is typically responded to this 'response': there are a large number of people-many European-who would unironically say that 50°F (10°C) is, in fact, the ideal temperature.
They're wrong, of course, but they exist.
But you're also assuming that the exact middle of the range is where the ideal sweet spot should be. That's wrong. People generally can better handle larger temperature deviations that are colder than their ideal than hotter deviations.
The difference is that humans emit their own heat. Combined with our funny tendency to wear insulative clothing that can asymptotically approach zero net heat exchange with the atmosphere, acceptable temperatures skew wildly towards and beyond freezing.
Meanwhile, without some kind of acting cooling mechanism, any temp even slightly above fever temp is inevitably fatal. You can only take off so many layers. What are you going to do, take off your skin? Sweating helps us humans a lot, but evaporative cooling can only do so much to reverse the heat gradient.
50 F is excellent... with a light jacket or a blanket. Not so much if you're naked.
Why should the ideal temperature be right in the middle of the range?
It's no surprise that the maximum end of the range is right around the body temperature, as it's difficult for the body to keep itself cool once the environment is around or warmer than the body temperature. Sure, we can sweat, but that uses up a lot of water and people generally find that getting all sweaty to not be pleasant. Run out of water or raise the temperature too much and it gets dangerous pretty quickly.
On the other hand, if the environment is a lot cooler than the body temperature, then it is difficult for the body to keep warm. I'm sure for our distant ancestors who lived in what is now Africa, their minimum temperature was much higher, possibly putting the ideal temperature right around the middle of their range. Luckily for us, we have clothing and can put on more clothing to stay warm, which is how we can now make the minimum so low. But while we can use clothing to lower our minimum, we really don't have anything different to raise our maximum vs. our ancestors - we're both limited by how well we can cool ourselves by sweating. So for that reason it doesn't really surprise me that our ideal temperature is towards the upper end of what we consider the minimum and maximum temperatures.
Fahrenheit isn’t how people feel, otherwise 50° would be perfect temperature.
it is though? It's like perfectly comfortable because you can dress up just enough to where you're actually wearing a decent bit of clothing, but you can also dress down to a pretty light set of clothing as well.
This is also ignoring that this is both, arbitrary, and also completely subjective to the person.
The human body might end up liking 70f more than 50f, purely because it's 96f inside the body, so something lower to allow heat transfer, but not low enough to be physically uncomfortable would be more expected.
Actually, here's a good question, why do you land on the 50f point? Are you expecting the middle to be the most optimal point of perfection? Or is this just a metric brain thing?
What annoys me about that phrasing, is that "how water feels" is quite relevant to how humans feel.
The obvious example is that if it's below 0°C, it starts freezing, which causes slippery sidewalks, snow, dry air, all that stuff.
But just in general having a feeling how much water will evaporate and later precipitate at certain temperatures, and even stuff like how hot beverages and cooking temperatures are, it's all still relevant for humans...
The obvious example is that if it’s below 0°C, it starts freezing, which causes slippery sidewalks, snow, dry air, all that stuff.
But just in general having a feeling how much water will evaporate and later precipitate at certain temperatures, and even stuff like how hot beverages and cooking temperatures are, it’s all still relevant for humans…
that's an interesting idea, BUT, the boiling point for water also exists under f as well, it's just 212 f, which if you want to round for convenience, is 200f. 100f is just about half the boiling point of water.
I guess you celsius folks might be more water pilled than the average US citizen, but it's not like it's impossible.
In Celcius water boils at exactly 100°C, and you don't have to round, and 50°C is exactly half the boiling point of water.
Yes, Celsius users are waterpilled: the whole system is based on the temperature at which water freezes and evaporates at 1 atm pressure.
(You're just fucking with us right? Like Celsius is has a coarser base unit, and the range applicable to human temperatures are not such pretty numbers, but you can't be seriously thinking Fahrenheit makes more sense for when we talk about water?)
In Celcius water boils at exactly 100°C, and you don’t have to round, and 50°C is exactly half the boiling point of water.
unless you're doing literal chemistry, the specific boiling point of the water doesn't matter, especially for any subjective referential experiences you might have, such as, going outside.
(You’re just fucking with us right? Like Celsius is has a coarser base unit, and the range applicable to human temperatures are not such pretty numbers, but you can’t be seriously thinking Fahrenheit makes more sense for when we talk about water?)
i'm not saying it's better, i'm just saying you're having a failure of imagination to conceptualize the usage of the fahrenheit system if you so pleased to use it in such a specific manner, which almost nobody here does. You could still do it though.
idk man, there's a lot of temperatures in cooking that are like, kind of close? Not that close, but like, kind of close. Even then, the one case where i consider it genuinely mattering is boiling water which like, you can just kinda know.
the celsius scale literally covers 55% of the range of the fahrenheit scale. I'd say "about half" is perfectly reasonable.
granted, it skews since you're starting on the low end. The figure is more like 122f right in the middle, which is, not great, but i wasn't going to calculate the half boiling point as i've literally never seen it be relevant anywhere lol.
Celcius degrees are quite a bit larger than Fahrenheit degrees. 0 to 100C is much larger than 0 to 100F so I don't get what you mean by Celcius covering about half of Fahrenheit. In any case neither scale runs out of numbers high or low
my main point was that accuracy matters a lot less with fahrenheit, because it's so much broader. a range of about 10 degrees fahrenheit is the average subjectively experienced "change" in temperature, at least on the higher end, where there's more difference between the individual numbers. On the cold side there's a lot less variance as it meets at about -40 in both systems.
In any case neither scale runs out of numbers high or low
this is very true though, hard to run out of numbers when you can just make more up, although there is an ultimate limit in either direction, due to what temperature actually measures. That's a physics thing though.
The words you are looking for are that Fahrenheit is more precise. But it's not as there are an infinity of numbers between any two integers.
My thermometer at work which I use for health and safety stuff reports temperature to two decimal places. Had we wanted more precision we could have gone with twenty decimal places. In too big or too small metric units we use multipliers - metres are too small for long distances so we use kilometres (thousands of metres), metres are too big for construction so we use millimetres (thousandths of metres)
Where Celcius degrees are too big, people (scientists, since whole degrees or a single decimal is enough for everyone else) use milikelvins
Forty-one sounds insanely hot as an outside temperature if that's the standard you're used to. And that's the thing that the Fahrentards refuse to wrap their head around.
I present the temperature scale that I made up- the Human Scale (H°)
I thought about the Fahrenheit vs Celsius debate, and I think both have practical uses, however I think combined they could make a very practical scale.
Fahrenheit: while my American sensibilities agree that 100° is a good marker for what % of my patience is used up to cut a bitch, I think a similar place would be the average human body temperature. For this reason, 100°H = 98.6°F . It's not a perfect match, but it can still give us the satisfaction of "IT'S 100°!?" while having practical implications for medical uses "your body temperature is 102°, 2° warmer than average".
Celsius: I think this scale makes a ton of sense for colder temperatures. When the thermometer reads 0°, that's when you can expect snow. For this reason, 0°H = 0°C.
The conversation rates are:
H = (F-32) × 1.5
H= C × 2.7
More precise is
H = (F-32) × 1.501501501...
H = C × 2.7027027027...
While using the freezing point of water and the average human body temperature seem like inconsistent and arbitrary benchmarks, my goal is less about consistency and more about practicality for everyday use.
Behold! "Disagree Degrees". We're going to combine the best traits of the other units. No more searching for the stupid little degree character in the character map. D for degrees or disagrees - whatever, I don't give a shit.
0D = 0K (Like Kelvin, no negatives! That's so dumb!)
0.4D = -40 C and -40 F
1D = Water Freezing point (Need a consistent point of scale)
10D = "Pleasant temperature"
100D = Kind of hot
500D = Really hot for people (>40C or >100F) "It's like 500 disagrees out there!"
1000D= Water boiling (To match the freezing temp)
1,000,000,000,000D = Surface of the sun
Good luck on the math converting to other units, this temperature scale isn't about being useful for nerd stuff, it's all about appealing to our emotions.
Which is the closest thing to a legitimate criticism of celcius that exists. The entire top half of the scale (everything over ~50°, that is) is pretty much useless as far as judging the weather is concerned.
mild in what way? Do you live in death valley??? Have you ever experienced 100f? You can literally get heat exhaustion, and heat stroke from temperatures of 110f pretty easily if you aren't watching yourself, we remind ourselves of this constantly anytime it gets hot.
It’s slightly above my core body temperature. So yes, literally I experience it all the time.
to be clear, it's not slightly above, it's high enough that you're getting into fever range, a few degrees over that and it starts to become deadly. 105f internal temp is potentially fatal so.
the average body temperature ranges about 2 degree fahrenheit. 97f to 99f that's about the entire extent of that. 100F specifically is slightly over that in terms of general temperature experience.
Sauna. It’s literally boiled water. And it’s pretty safe for average human.
thank god, i was about to do hard labor in a sauna. Not to mention this is also a sauna, not direct infrared and UV exposure to direct sunlight. Not to mention the literal temperature of the environment around it, and the indirect reflected heating that you'll receive.
guess i should now argue that cold temperatures aren't dangerous because people do ice baths regularly.
“Bigger number is more better” also explains American sports where you get 3 points for running a bit and then play stops for an ad break and the national anthem.
If you somehow knew nothing about each temperature unit, but you did know base 10, I feel like Fahrenheit would be more intuitive.
Would it though? Because it's not like people who didn't grew up with Fahrenheit can just intuitively use and interpret it. Maybe base ten is "more intuitive", but I'd argue not to any meaningful degree. Both scales have to be explained, experienced, and tied to personal reference points.
I'm gonna be honest. I love Celsius for the the whole perfect math reasons with calories and water based measurement...
But the curve on temps is a pain when all the nice temperatures require using a decimal place to decide just how slightly above or below pleasant it is but cold is basically everything from 16°C to -30°C
And then decimals really matter when hotter than pleasant temps.
Whole rounded integers are just so vastly different depending how high or low you are in Celsius.
I don't know man, I've lived my entire life in a country that only uses Celsius and I've never seen a single place or person using decimals to display temperature we always use whole numbers.
I get your point but the difference in 1 degree in Celsius is still very insignificant to the point we don't really need decimals at all.
I've been all over the world. Trust me seeing 21.6 or other decimals is not uncommon you and others are really just pushing hard on the ideas that there is no flaws and none of the quirks of Celsius.
I literally just set an air conditioner to 20.5°C. I don't get why lie like this.
The reason you see fractions is BECAUSE of Fahrenheit. Your air conditioner is designed to work in multiple regions and so it works on steps. Easier to just map the half steps to Fahrenheit degrees and call it a day.
For non-electronic usage, people just say the round number.
No this was an airconditioner built for and used in Japan only. It's only in Celsius. It just uses decimal point options for finer control. I have been in plenty of places that only use Celsius and use decimals especially higher than 20s.
And still doesn't change the drastic change between the whole numbers the higher you go vs lower temps.
Edit: literally my fever thermometer uses decimals to help you get a proper temperature reading between normal and fever.
Sure the thermometer is the one place I remember decimals, but I can guarantee you no one I've ever met in my life knows the difference between 25 and 26 degrees celsius, much less decimals of it.
Specially air conditioners, they all have arrows to go up and down the temperature, you're literally just speaking from a very specific experience of one special air conditioner that had more control than most others.
Whatever it was it was intended for it was built in China for a global audience, then customized for whatever market it was sold in. They all use common software platforms.
It does indeed change that fact, because temperature is exclusively reported in whole numbers. Go to any weather channel, site, provider, etc. It’s always whole numbers, even in Celsius.
That's a really weird one, every apartment I've lived at the air conditioner only displays the temperature in integers and I'm 100% sure of that because every each one of them had arrows to change the temperature up or down in one unit.
Meh I'm about 50/50 4 air conditioners in. Half degrees has not been all that uncommon and it's up and down arrows to adjust it. I don't get the handwaving of legitimate points of comtention to make Celsius seem more perfect. Everything has its flaws. It's completely fine to admit that.
That's not the point, I haven't said Celsius is perfect not a single time here, I'm just calling your BS because you said decimals matter for us which is not true because no one that lives in a country that uses Celsius knows the difference a decimal makes, I honestly think we just really feel some difference at like 2 degrees in variation, far from decimals.
Yeah your point is BS, because you really don't need decimals to do most things. Good for you that you can notice decimals in difference but that's not a normal thing, most weather forecast only say the integer, most air conditioners (all as far as I've seen) tell the temperature in integer, if you talk to someone else about the weather we also talk in integer.
YOU should stop pushing the idea that decimals are important into everyone else as if they are true for everyone, because they're not.
But really it is much better for human temperatures.
It's just intuitive, 0F is 100% cold, and 100F is 100% hot.
When the dry bulb gets above 100F, wind only cools you down by sweat evaporation, and when the wet bulb gets above 100F, even that can't cool you down, and you will die if you don't get to a cooler or drier environment.
"Intuitive" is a meaningless metric for a single scaled number. Whichever system you are used to will be the more "intuitive".
Also, climate can play into which system feels more useful. Where I live, 100F occurs only rarely (and since air conditioning is almost ubiquitous, not something I'd bother looking out for), while 0C is an outdoor temperature that I do need to be aware of for half the year.
I disagree that either would be just as intuitive. Fahrenheit being 0=cold and 100=hot is intuitive because there are a lot of things we do in the world that exist on a scale of 0 - 100. Percentages, just off the bat. Also, fahrenheit has a higher degree of fidelity in the temperature range that we use.
Celsius's general temperature scale is like -10 - 40 which is absolutely not intuitive because it doesn't look like any other scale we use as humans. I agree that we get used to Celsius fast and it's a fine it's not like it's super confusing (and Celsius is so much more useful scientifically).
Which system did you grow up with?
Because I grew up from the start with Celsius und it is 100% intuitive to me. Everytime you americans use your funny temperature numbers I have to stop and use a tool for transforming it or I simply ignore it and go "low means cold and high means hot, how high? Ain't nobody got time for dat!"
So I disagree with your notion that Fahrenheit is intuitive. The system you grew up with and have multiple experiences as reference points for, is the system you feel is intuitive is also my opinion.
That's not either scale being intuitive or unintuitive, that's your familiarity with one over the other.
I got curious so I did some research on the definitions and why everything is this way. It looks like they originally picked the coldest thing they had (brine, possibly inspired by the coldest weather), the freezing point of water, human body temperature, and the boiling point of water. It was supposed to be brine at 0, water freezing at 30, the human body at 90, and water boiling at 240. Fahrenheit then recalibrated his scale slightly to make his math (and thermometer design and production) easier, and also because he noticed water actually boiled at 212 by his newly modified scale.
Looking at it like that work the context of what they had at the time and what they were trying to do, it makes a lot of sense.
Never said either one can't be intuitive, just that the scale of farenheit has a precedence outside of it being an arbitrary temperature measurement by being a scale that goes from about 0 - 100.
If you had never used either scale and some one asked: "which is more intuitive, a temperature scale where -10 is really cold and 40 is really hot or one where 0 is really cold and 100 is really hot?" I know which one I would pick because I've done things before like calculate percentages and work in a base 10 system so it makes sense for the scale to be between two orders of magnitude.
But that is what we others are saying: there is no "more intuitive" system, just one you know better and can quicker evaluate how it would feel! So you agree with us.
Everything you said can be said about Celsius scale as well.
There is also a precedence for Celsius more than just an arbitrary number between 0 & 100.
A scale for liquid water, you know, the stuff that is the reason why we call our little spaceship "the blue marble"and why we even have this discussion, because it is the basis of all life on earth, is also not a bad choice for a number between 0-100.
And you made me curious: in what context did you have to calculate percentages of temperature that were not in Kelvin? Because as soon as percentages and temperatures are close to each other in one sentence the only example I can think of are things like reaction kinetic calculations and those are neither in Celsius nor in Fahrenheit.
You should examine your definition of intuitive. Yes, technically nothing is intuitive it's just based on what you know because intuition is also based on what you're used to.
By your logic, if you compare a machine that powers on by pressing a big glowing red button labeled "ON" and one that turns on by you performing the haka in front of a camera while reciting a Shakespeare sonnet backwards you might say that there is no "more intuitive" way to turn on a machine, just one you know better and can perform quicker!
You aren't reading what you're replying to because I said in a previous post that it's easy to get used to Celsius and fahrenheit and there's no difference to either and I also already said that Celsius is better for science because it's based on water.
Everything you said can be said about Celsius scale as well.
At this point you're just lying or further proving that you didn't even read the post you tried to respond patronizingly to. I said that the Fahrenheit scale is intuitive because it's a 0-100 scale which is similar to other scales we use all the time and works well for our base 10 counting system being a scale essentially between two powers of 10. Neither of that can be said for Celsius and that's so obvious I think you just didn't read it before replying.
And hell, on top of all this, I think we should all switch to using Celsius! Because as I mentioned it's easy to grasp both scales and using Celsius makes understanding a lot of science easier which I think is the only real argument in this arbitrary choice between the two! But I'm out here explaining the use of Fahrenheit because people here can't grasp my explanation for why people might use it and are acting like they've got the defeater to a post they didn't even read!
But fahrenheit is not a 0-100 scale. You have just arbitrarily picked out 0-100 because that makes your brain more easily understand the non-intuitive system which is fahrenheit.
If we want to go that road, intuition is according to Wikipedia:
Intuition is the ability to acquire knowledge, without recourse to conscious reasoning or needing an explanation.[2][3] Different fields use the word "intuition" in very different ways, including but not limited to: direct access to unconscious knowledge; unconscious cognition; gut feelings; inner sensing; inner insight to unconscious pattern-recognition; and the ability to understand something instinctively, without any need for conscious reasoning.[4][5] Intuitive knowledge tends to be approximate.[6]
Since every temperature system needs an explanation, namely the reference points, no system is or even can be intuitive per this definition.
It has only been 100°F once in the last century. Nobody has any point of reference to make this intuitive. 30°C/85°F is defined as hot around here. 40°C/100°F is defined as national emergency.
pure water at mean atmosphere pressure at sea level if we're getting technical, but frankly human body temperature varies from 35.5C (95.9F) to 37.5C (99.5F) anyway, and that's before considering when people are ill, so if we go down that route it falls apart quickly enough that the definition of 100 given above is clearly just as arbitrary
I'm okay with "mean atmosphere pressure" bc that's what is most likely to occur, whereas pure water seems far less likely to be found in a coastal village. The oddness of the measuring abilities of the devices made at the time is a more damning argument, but less for them back then and more for us now. Still, roughly negative ten to 40 for Celsius vs. roughly zero to one hundred for Fahrenheit, the latter does seem to use more "natural" numbers, even if nothing else about non-metric systems makes any sense.
100F was defined as the human body temperature (The guy they used had a cold or something so it's off by a degree and a half.)
That's useful for perception of heat. When the dry bulb gets above 100F, wind only cools you down by sweat evaporation, and when the wet bulb gets above 100F, even that can’t cool you down, and you will die if you don’t get to a cooler or drier environment.
what Fahrenheit used for his endpoints was 1) the melting point of a brine mixture that he didn't write down the ratio of, and 2) his wife's armpit.
those "bulb" things is something i only ever hear of from americans. it's never used here.
and I fail to see how two numbers are somehow differently intuitive. they are just numbers.
also, 36.5 is too low. it's pretty much 37.0 now, because average body temp has interestingly enough shifted since he took those measurements.
Dry bulb is a normal temperature reading with say a thermometer. Wet bulb is that same thermometer but it is wrapped in a wet cloth to simulate evaporation of sweat.
The purpose of wet bulb temperature measurement is to fix the dangerous temperature threshold at body temperature instead of having to adjust for humidity. So if the wet bulb temperature crosses 35C/95F you know that it is dangerous to even be outside because your sweat can't even evaporate enough to prevent you from overheating just standing in the shade.
Dry bulb is the temperature independent of humidity. Wet bulb is has a wet cloth on the thermometer bulb. This simulates how much sweat cools you in the current humidity and wind.
Measuring humidity instead and cross-referencing to get heat index is more common these days, but IMO it's worse. 120 in the desert vs 120 heat index due to humidity is the difference between someone using a hair dryer on your face and getting cooked in a steam room, and it doesn't consider wind and cloud cover.
So you're saying that 0 and 100 aren't intuitively obvious? I find that really strange when it's doing a better job keeping to base 10 than the metric system in this particular use case.
the numbers may be, but if you asked me to tell you what they feel like i would have to convert them to celsius first. where i live temperatures are generally between -30 and +30, and i could tell you in an instant what I would wear for a given temperature in that range. 50F though? no clue. since it's right between 0 and 100 i guess it would be just right, temperature wise, so t-shirt and long pants?
Can you remember that at temperatures near 0F and 100F, you need to take special precautions when going outside? The rest is a matter of getting used to what the numbers mean, but those are very intuitive danger points.
-18 is such an arbitrary place for "special precautions". at 0, I know to start driving more carefully since the roads ice up. at -15, i know to wear long johns. at +15, i know to start using a thinner jacket. at -30, i know to use a thick hat and wax on my cheeks to prevent the blood vessels from rupturing. at +30, I know to use a large hat and sun cream on my cheeks to prevent them from burning.
yeah no shit, but think of it this way, if you were put into a place that was 100f, you would go "damn this bitch hot out here" and if you were put into a place that was 0f you would go "damn this joint cold as fuck fr"
When it comes to a single number on a scale, whatever you grew up with will be more "obvious". 100F doesn't give me any more information than 38C does. The whole "base 10" thing only matters if you are actually doing some math to that number.
For day to day use, it's just a single number, no one is doing any conversions, etc, with the number. That was my point. There's nothing to remember. Do you forget what 72F feels like? Do you have to scale it in your head?
100F definitely gives more insight as to the temperature. It's a 100/100. That's as hot as a person can really tolerate. If you understand percentages or how to rate things on a scale of 1-10, you understand fahrenheit.
There's large chunks of the world proving that false every day. For the geographically impared, the simple fact that Phoenix has existed for longer than air conditioning, proves that statement false.
fun fact about phoenix, going outside on a day that's about 100f, is not fucking pleasant they literally have air misters to help provide cooling, which barely does anything.
People are just fucking insane and will live in places like alaska where the ground is literally frozen all year round. Phoneix AZ is not "habitable", it's bearable. Also a lot of these places, especially in hotter dryer regions, will have covered sidewalks to provide shade, (at least historically) people would and still do wear large hats to block a lot of the sun. Even then a lot of people wouldn't spend a whole bunch of time outside in that heat.
also, have you seen death valley? It kills people, every fucking year.
That's why I used the qualifier "really" and in another comment I mentioned "in average temperate climates" If you were more familiar with statistics you would understand how means and outliers work.
Just like someone can score a movie an 11/10 or a -1/10, it is possible for the weather to exceed 100F or drop below 0F. Just not typical.
And while I didn't say it specifically, 0F is similarly the average lowest temperature a person can tolerate/expect before beginning to experience problems.
For Celsius, 0 is freezing cold and 100 is boiling hot - that's intuitive too.
I have literally never felt 0°F in my life and couldn't tell you how cold it is, just that it's very cold. I believe everyone has a rough understanding how 0°C and 100°C feel though.
It is intuitive, and that's fine. Having the same intuition around human comfort zones is also fine. One measurement system can't really cover everything.
People tend not to want to live in places where it's routinely under 0F or over 100F. You'll tolerate it, but you won't like it. It's a very natural range of human comfort.
No, they're not. I couldn't tell what those numbers mean even if you asked, but I can tell what 0°C outside feels, and what 100°C sauna feels. I can also tell that 21°C is a nice ambient temperature for chilling, and 15-20°C is ideal for most outdoor sports.
Yeah sure those are not necessarily nice round numbers, but I've used the scale all my life so it's intuitive to me, same as the Fahrentrash is intuitive to you
You understand the concept of a scale. If I asked you to rate something on a scale of 1-10, you know what i mean. It has nothing to do with intuitiveness. If I asked you to rate something on a scale of 7-23, you'd know what I mean, even though the numbers are different than what you're used to.
So if I said it was 100F outside, you'd know that's very uncomfortably hot, as hot as a normal person can really tolerate, because you'd recognize it as the high end of the scale.
Everyone can understand fahrenheit, some people just try really hard not to.
You really don't understand what reference points are. The scale is useless without reference points, and I'm not accustomed to them while I have very clear ones for Celsius.
Sure I can understand that 100F feels very hot, but if I was outside in that temperature I couldn't tell you an estimate in Fahrenheit how hot it feels
0 and 100 aren't just "very cold" and "very hot". They are potentially dangerously so, and you need to take extra precautions at temperatures beyond those limits. You don't necessarily have to understand it beyond that.
It is pretty funny how your supposed completely intuitive human feeling system needs to have all these disclaimers added to it whenever you try to explain it. Perhaps it is only intuitive because you are used to it after all?
The reference points are 0 and 100! You don't have to get accustomed to them, they are the same reference points used by the entire base-10 numerical system. It is a percentage.
And yes, you could step out into 100F degree heat and accurately estimate the temperature. Is it the hottest day of summer? Are you beginning to experience symptoms of heat fatigue? Are you saying to yourself "This is one of the hottest days I have ever experienced", all the same stuff you'd think if you stepped outside into 37.8C weather. Then it's probably close to the high end of the scale, i.e. 100F.
Okay so you're making lot of weird assumptions here. I don't know how hot weather 37°C feels, other than that for me 30+ is absolute hell. I've never experienced heatwave that bad for what I remember. Hottest summer days here are just about 30°C, and it's miserable.
Reference point means that I'm able to easily understand what that temperature is.
I can easily understand 100°C though, sauna is getting too hot and I should open window and chill down with feeding the fire.
For 0-30 I can easily understand how I should dress outside, and 0°C is easy to understand because just above it and I know it's going to be wet and slippery if there was negatives before it, and below 0 is slippery if there was positives earlier.
What is intuitive to you is totally a subjective experience based on your earlier experiences and what you're used to use to measure temperatures.
If you'd say it is 100F outside, I wouldn't know what you mean because I have no concept of Fahrenheit. Is 100F actually hot? What is that in Celsius? Do you mean hot as in "better to wear light clothes" or "Do not set a foot outside or you will melt"?
What does it mean "as hot as a normal person can really tolerate"? What about a abnormal person?
It gives nothing of information. Just a rough indication of what it might be. Which isn't useful at all.
Do you understand the base-10 numerical system? Do you understand percentages? Congratulations, you understand fahrenheit. You can no longer honestly say, on the internet or otherwise, that fahrenheit is meaningless to you. You are now a fahrenheit understander, whether you like it or not.
Also, your second statement answers your first question. When I say "as hot as a normal person can tolerate" i do not mean "wear light clothes", I mean "as hot as a normal person can tolerate". Thats why i said "as hot as a normal person can tolerate". Happy to clear that up you for you.
Abnormalities/outliers are not something on which we should base standards of measurements.
You keep saying this but it still doesn't make any sense. 50% heat would be average middle of the pack nice? And "as hot as normal person can tolerate" is full of shit because neither you or I have no concept of what "normal person can tolerate", as the normal depends on your geography. And this is quite a good reason why claiming "Fahrenheit is how human feels" is just idiotic as it relies both on a specific climate and having learned that scale growing up.
I swear you Americans can get so fucking stupid on this topic, it's like claiming that Finnish is the most intuitive language because it's the language of how love (average love, excluding outliers obviously) feels
They aren't. And fahrenheit is not a 0-100 scale. It is just the scale you picked out of it in order to make some kind of sense out of the non-intuitive system which it is.
yeah, and it seems to me like they're the wrong ones here, because i can think about things in celsius perfectly fine without my worldview imploding, in fact i can pretty accurately estimate temperature conversions even.
Like it's great that you guys don't have to use it, but please think about it a little bit harder before saying something really goofy that can be explained easily. Or just like, shitpost.
If I said a movie was a 7/10, you would understand what that means because it's a scale. You don't have to "grow up" using a 0-10 scale to understand it.
Like if I asked you to rate something on a scale of 4-17, you'd understand what I mean. The numbers are different but the concept of a scale remains the same.
if I knew that you are a european and you told me a movie was 5/10, i would assume it was average. if i knew you were American, i would assume it was dogshit.
Americans have a weird relationship with numbers.
also, as mentioned in another post: if 0 is too cold and 100 is too hot, surely 50 would be a pleasant temperature?
"Americans" ah, I see. You don't actually care about effective systems of measurement, you just want to shit on people that are different from you.
Also, as answered in another post:
Why would you assume that humans, an endothermic species, prefers exactly 50% thermal energy? Of course we sit around the 70F region, we're warm-blooded mammals. We don't want to be half cold, we want to be mostly warm.
No matter how much you complain or argue, it's never going to be true that Celsius is the one-and-only most perfect system of temperature measurement. The fact is that both systems have their applications, as any intelligent member of the scientific community would tell you.
considering america is the only place that uses it, i can't really find any other factor to use.
the point of a temperature scale is to quantify temperature as to ease its communication. if one player is using a different scale that's just complicating things.
also, if its an "intuitive" scale, surely it should take human bias into account?
Really not. Basically, you just need to peg feelings to a number, just like you are doing.
Celsius:
below -20 = deadly even with good gear, you can't spend long here
-15 = very dangerous / deadly
-10 = starting to get dangerous
-5 = starting to get uncomfortable
0 = very cold
5 = cold
10 = a little cold
15 = cool
20 = nice
25 = warm
30 = hot
35 = starting to get uncomfortable
40 = starting to get dangerous
45 = very dangerous / deadly
50+ = deadly even with good gear, you can't spend long here
Also, that's a lot of explaining, and lots of feelings associated with arbitrary numbers. Fahrenheit doesn't need anywhere near that level of explanation. It doesn't necessitate the pegging of feelings to random numbers.
The sentence "Fahrenheit is a 0-100 scale of how hot it is outside" is all anyone needs to immediately understand and be able to use fahrenheit. I didn't need to type out a long list of what each temperature value means to me. There is no need for a mneumonic such as "10 is cold, 20s not, 30s warm, and 40s hot"
If you're doing math in a lab, absolutely use Celsius. I'm not saying it doesn't have a place. It's just not the be-all end-all most perfectest temperature measurement system ever.
I think you are projecting your feeling onto others; I don't have "a mneumonic" in my head. That was for your benefit, since you are not immersed in that scale.
When I see the weather report and it says tomorrow it is going to be 25 degrees with light wind, I know that it will be a pleasant day. The same way I know what the reporter is saying, I have been immersed in the English language since birth, it requires no though to understand the words they are saying.
It requires no thought to understand that 25 degrees and light wind is a nice day. It just is.
I don't have that intuitive sense for the F scale, I always have to convert it to a sensible number. I know 100 is around 37, which is really hot.
But it requires you to be familiar with an arbitrary -20 - 40 scale. Which makes way less sense than a 0-100 scale.
I don't need to use the mnemonic either, I grew up in the U.S. so I understand both systems perfectly well. But the mnemonic exists because Celsius uses an inherently less sensible scale. You only understand it internally because you grew up with it.
A person who grew up with neither system would find fahrenheit easier to understand from an unbiased position because it's more logical.
deg C is no more arbitrary than deg F; any more than French is more arbitrary than English.
It is a strange argument to say "You only understand it internally because you grew up with it."; well yes, but that is exactly the same with the deg F scale.
A person who grew up with neither system would find fahrenheit easier to understand from an unbiased position because it’s more logical.
In your opinion.
In my opinion it is far more logical to base you temperature scale on repeatable physical measurements, than say what a person feels.
0 C = water freezes
0 F =
Several accounts of how he originally defined his scale exist, but the original paper suggests the lower defining point, 0 °F, was established as the freezing temperature of a solution of brine made from a mixture of water, ice, and ammonium chloride (a salt)
100 C = water boils
100 F = best estimate for average human body temperature.
But it requires you to be familiar with an arbitrary -20 - 40 scale. Which makes way less sense than a 0-100 scale.
Your 0-100 scale is just as arbitrary, in fact even more, since it doesn't even cover the daily temperatures huge parts of the global population lives in.
But to understand "x out of a possible y" you have to understand scales, or at least percentages which is the same concept. Then, if you understand percentages, you understand fahrenheit.
Honestly more places should do what the U.S. does and just teach both (and Kelvin). Because ultimately there isn't one perfect system of measurement for every possible application. Celsius is of course better in lab settings, Fahrenheit is better for cooking and meteorology.
Honestly, I thought I'd deleted that comment before you replied. I'd broken my promise to myself of never commenting in the celsius/fahrenheit threads.
I understand. Tbh, I usually try to stay out of arguments too, but the fahrenheit debate is pretty low-stakes and kinda fun sometimes so I figured I'd jump in.
this is so true, but the thing the celsiouds won't understand, that the farenheitoids haven't realized, is that the celsius users die (not literally) in heat of about 85 f which for any fahrenheit user is, literally a nice summer day.
EDIT: i'm making a joke about the UK heat waves, since people don't seem to realize that.
would someone explain to me why whenever european people are confronted with the idea of the imperial system their brain seems to shutdown into a slow state of oxygen preservation? I genuinely don't understand it.
"40c in f is 104????" yeah, round it, its 100f, you think we specify to the Nth degree here?
"86f doesn't really make sense" yeah, round it. 90 is pretty close, and who boy 90s are pretty hot.
"why isn't 50f the perfect temperature" you're literally just applying an arbitrary point on something entirely arbitrary. But ok. (also it is the perfect temperature range between 50-70f)
"how is -17c and 37c cold and hot???" literally round it bro, -20 and 40c are right there wow look at that now it makes more sense! Im pretty sure this commenter is aussie or something, so in their defense, anything under 70f is cold for them. Either that or they don't wear clothes, ever, because they're calculating the coldness with no clothing. for some reason.
"yeah but we also think of things in relation to the temperature of water, like freezing is when shit is icy, and also the relation to the boiling point" brother, water boils in fahrenheit as well (212f, but again, you're going to shocked by this one, you can round it down to 200f, wow look at that, it's like, pretty close.) sure the freezing point is still higher, but you really only get freezes here at super prolonged periods of just under 30f weather, or really cold snaps that stick around a bit. generally snow in 30f weather is, not really a thing, the ground is still warm enough it melts. ice doesn't form unless it's like, close to 0.
guys, i promise, it's not this hard. Just, think about it a little bit, please. You're killing me here!
When you use Celsius from birth 41C does make you say FORTY ONE DEGREES?!!!
Yeah, but it hits different. Smaller number is smaller.
That's why I use Kelvin. THREE HUNDRED AND FIFTEEN DEGREES?!!
Degrees? While using Kelvin?? OP is a phony!
I'd excuse it as part of the joke
Should use Rankine with that logic. It comes out to 566.
Why not Centikelvin?
THIRTY ONE THOUSAND AND FIVE HUNDRED CENTIKELVIN??!!!
It's about crossing into triple digits, a new order of magnitude, it feels heavy.
But it's also underwhelming when your usual reference for over 100 is, "WHAT IT'S HOT ENOUGH TO BOIL WATER OUTSIDE!?"
It doesn't really though for people who doesn't use fahrenheit.
... for you.
brother, that's what a world view is lmao, do you not understand this concept?
Most of us don't really go anywhere outside of the US, the entire continental US is the literal equivalent of the collective EU. What do you want me to say? I literally don't need to leave to US to experience something geographically unique.
I think they've meant world's view, not worldview
im pretty sure the world's view would be that we're parasites destroying the well balanced nature of the ecology of the earth, but that's just me.
Geographically perhaps. But the cultural and historical unique is something you are going to miss out on by staying inside your own home country for your entire life. You think your US regional differences are the same as the differences between two countries, but anyone who has experienced different countries will tell you in an instant that that is not so.
i mean culturally in terms of outside of the continental US sure. There's plenty of interesting and unique culture within the US if you just go looking for it. Though a lot of it is going to be somewhat westernized in essence. If you want more eastern culture, obviously you're going to have to go farther east, but i feel like that's a given.
On the other hand, if it was 107°C outside, the outrage would be so much more justified.
But much less vocal.
You know, because we'd all be dead.
No, he's right. The "one hundred" part really does add certain powers, Austin Powers
It's that extra "one" of incredulity.
40 degrees, that's just too hot.
41? You've got to be fucking kidding me.
In Australia we go with "Farkin hot"
By that metric, kelvin would be even better though.
Americans cannot understand any metric
2 liter bottle.
Checkmate, athiests.
9mm
We’re more familiar with 5.56x45mm thanks to all our school shootings thank you very much.
In the same way a US ton and a metric ton is like 10% different, a 556 bullet is actually 5.7 mm across.
Because the minor diameter of the barrel is 5.56 mm and the major diameter is 5.69 mm. If the bullet were smaller than that then the propellant would blow past it. They didn't make a 'murican millimetre like they did with the imperial system.
I would make a bet that more mass shootings are done with 9mm. Depending on which shootings they consider 'mass' I see estimates from 60-80% for handgun usage. I'm sure the cheap .22 is a large number, but 9mm is probably right up there. There is a large bias in reporting the school shootings and shootings involving rifles by the media. They almost ignore the others.
28 grams to an ounce
In point of fact Americans have gotten impressive results out of far more complicated metrics than metric. It's not a matter of understanding, it's a matter of pride. And of not having to buy all new tools.
You miss out on screaming that it's negative anything though.
-40F = -40C
Kelvin doesn't have a negative.
The best system would have 0 at a mild, comfortable temperature, and go up or down by 100 degrees per one degrees Fahrenheit.
But mild and comfortable is different for different people who are acclimated to different weather.
We need a defined 'mild' temperature. i vote for 70F/21C.
It's a bit chilly for the warm weathered folks and a bit warm for the cold weathered folks. Seems reasonable but I'm open to suggestions.
As a cold weathered folk, I can confirm that 70 is my upper limit for nice temperature
I'd adjust it to 68/20 just so it lines up with whole numbers in both systems. And on second thought, make it 90 per degree Fahrenheit so any whole F or C value can convert to a whole number.
it needs to be a range, you can't really just have a single point, something like 50f to 70f would be good. Some people like a little below, some people like a little above, the 60s are generally pretty comfy all around though.
We also need to consider clothing as well. Which i do in this case.
0 for freezing because water falls from the fucking sky.
You can absolutely yell about that. And when Fahrenheit flips to negative, you're ready to express some big feelings about how fucking cold it is.
And Rankine would be even better than Kelvin in terms of "big number go brrr." Water boils at 671 R.
Of course, Rankine is the most obnoxious unit I've ever had to deal with, but those numbers sure are big!
You mean it's THREE HUNDRED AND FOURTEEN FUCKING DEGREES OUTSIDE?!
OK, but with Rankine, if it's 101 out, you can go Five Hundred and SIXTY degrees??!
Please raise this temperature by 1.4x10^-23 Joules - statements of the utterly deranged
Joules are energy. You need thermal capacity to turn them into temperature.
“Kelvin” sounds a lot like “communism” you pinko
For proof that this thread is just people justifying what they know as better somehow, look no further than Canada.
We do cooking temps in Fahrenheit, weather in Celsius. Human weights in pounds, but never pounds and oz. Food weights in grams, cooking weights in pounds and oz. Liquid volume in millilitres and litres, but cooking in cups, teaspoons and tablespoons. Speed & distance in kilometres, heights in feet and inches.
Try and give this any consistency and people will look at you like you’re fucked. The next town is 100km over, I’m 5ft 10in, a can of soda is 355ml, it’s 21c out and I have the oven roasting something at 400f. Tell me it’s 68f out and I will fight you.
People like what they are used to, and will bend over backwards to justify it. This becomes blatantly obvious when you use a random mix of units like we do, because you realize that all that matters is mental scale.
If Fahrenheit is “how people feel” then why are feet useful measurements of height when 90% of people are between 4ft and 6ft? They aren’t. You just know the scale in your head, so when someone says they’re 7ft tall you say “dang that’s tall”. That’s it.
Fahrenheit: let's use "really cold weather" as zero and "really hot weather" as 100.
Celsius: let's use "freezing water" as zero, and "boiling water" as 100.
Canucks:
This makes a lot of sense, and why I'd never survive in Canada.
As a Canadian idk why your using us an an example, we are wrong to do so and we blame Americans for giving us this bad habit.
The only good thing about Fahrenheit is that 69 degrees (20.5 C) is a nice temperature.
And you can bake things at 420
You could bake something at 420 Celsius too, assuming your okay with charcoal as the end product
Or Pizza!
This is genuinely the most inconvenient thing about Fahrenheit
you can also bake things at 420C if you're not a coward about this (like proper thin pizza) (maybe it's a bit too high but you get the idea)
Well... If it's only for a few seconds...
You can make the temperature dial of an oven have matching degrees of rotation and degrees Celcius.
Turn the dial to point straight down to bake at 180°
Turn it 3/4 of the way to cook a pizza at 270°
a 69°C cup coffee on winter is nice
A cup of lukewarm coffee please.
Edit: my wrong, I thought it was 69°F !
All my excuses
According to James Hoffmann, the ideal temperature to enjoy coffee is between 50°C and 60°C, he may know a thing or two about coffee, and you may think the coffee you drink is hotter that it really is.
Also it's a 0-100 scale of how hot it is outside, and it requires no prior understanding to use it as such.
The freezing point of water is very important to weather, and requires prior knowledge of the arbitrary number 32.
Is it? Only pure water will actually freeze at 0c. Rain, puddles, lakes, etc aren't all that pure... And we're talking about ambient air temps here. The air can be below freezing and it can still rain. And you can get snow/hail above freezing...
Knowing the freezing point is just one factor. Knowing it's generally around 30F is pretty much always close enough (not that remembering 32 is actually very difficult)
Edit: also water only freezes at 0c if it's at sea level... I really don't think 0°=freezing is the huge advantage that celcius stans think it is.
yeah, and let me know how accurate our weather models and prediction systems are. Can you calculate accurately how much the temperature in a specific part of the atmosphere will drop to a large updraft?
What's that? This is literally an entire career field of study and development? Oh that's weird.
Also the only real time this is relevant, is when things that have this weird property called thermal mass get below freezing, it's snowing in 30f weather? That's not sticking, the ground is too warm. or the sun will literally just melt it even if it is cold enough. Water? You mean that weird thing called like, a lake or river? Those get below freezing, without actively freezing, lakes won't even drop that much in terms of temperature, aside from the surface level. The surface may freeze, but even that is pretty variable.
Also yes, it's the arbitrary number of 32, so is literally every number though. We have 2 numbers to remember, you also have 2 numbers to remember, god forbid you have like, a password, or a passcode, or like, a numbers based lock somewhere. Humans have never been known to be good at memorizing short strings of data.
like idk how to tell you this, but, it's not that big of a deal?
Okay so fahrenheit has a well-defined high and low, but an arbitrary freezing point of one certain chemical. All other chemical freezing points are arbitrary.
Celsius has an arbitrary high and low, but a well-defined freezing point of that same chemical. All other freezing points are arbitrary.
If your motivation is to minimize the amount of arbitrary values you have to memorize, fahrenheit is the clear winner.
The zero C is freezing and 100 C is boiling, so not really arbitrary.
But it's pretty hard to define a scale that has intuitive, round numbers for everything we might care about.
You're correct. In a lab setting, 0C and 100C are not arbitrary.
In the weather forecast, they are.
Which ties into your final point, it's hard to define a scale that is best for everything, which is exactly what I've been saying this whole time. Fahrenheit is better for some things, Celsius for others.
The only reason people in this thread are saying otherwise is because for some reason they've tied up some significant part of their self-worth into their belief that "lmao DAE fahrenheit bad amirite??1?", and they mistakenly believe that those of us that understand nuance are trying to belittle or disparage them in some way. I assure you, we are not.
well i mean technically, the only reason they aren't arbitrary is because the mean something, the numbers arent significant, it's what they represent, which is the boiling/freezing point of water.
i'm seeing people put very little thought into the things they're saying, i just recently posted a comment covering a few of those things in this thread. For some reason europeans seem to just get absolutely brainfucked when presented with the concept of a unit system that isn't metric, it's like your literal entire lives are built upon the concept of 0 10 100 scaling, and you can't consider literally anything outside of it.
Now maybe i'm being a little hyperbolic here, but US peeps pretty well understand that we could just "be using celsius" that's not really a wacky concept or idea here. Celsius peeps really seem to think that if they had to use fahrenheit, they would probably die from accidental over-consumption of water, somehow. And in their defense, a lot of our shit is kinda fucking weird. But again, it's really not that bad.
at least, this has been my experience from the various threads i've been in on this topic over time.
It’s not like the weather depends on the boiling point of formaldehyde…
The 0 in Fahrenheit was based on nothing and the 100F was supposed to be human temperature but it is off by some degrees
The water is not an arbitrary temperature, the weather is water dependant, at 0C the water will freeze and you get snow/ice instead of rain
0°F is when the ocean freezes
100° F was human body temperature, later revised somewhat with better measurements and a decrease of parasites . The average person in those days in London had a slightly higher body temperature than today
0F is not ocean freezing, is the freezing temp of a brine mix that he chose arbitrarily (some think that he chose that temp because it was close to the coldest his town had ever been and he used it to calibrate the scales of his thermometers)
FYI, the ocean freezes at around 28F
Oceans freezing also depends on currents, and mixing of the water from the surface. 28° will freeze water in a room.
This is why often the ocean is not frozen at much lower temperatures.
I’m not at all cognizant of how 0 was decided
If that was true outsiders should be able to use Fahrenheit without much explanation. I've never got a clue what the °F values mean, I always have to use a converter. It's really not as intuitive as people who grew up with it seem to believe.
because it's all relative, and you need to actually know how the temperatures relate to the things you're experiencing? I'm going to hazard a guess and say you're comfortable with using celsius? Oops cognitive bias. You would have to test this on someone who doesn't understand temperature yet. It just so happens that here in the US, it pretty conveniently lines up with those figures for us.
If your example cannot be proven on any existing person I'd argue it's hardly relevant to our reality.
°F most definitely isn't intuitive enough for people who aren't accustomed to it to use. If it is more intuitive at all, it's not to any meaningful degree.
possibly? Arguably you could still make the case that the existing range of 0-100f is more pleasant, and arguably nicer to use. But you would have to either find someone uniquely adapted to both systems, or you would have to do a lot of independent study on how humans interact with numbers and ranges of numbers. In order to find a specific answer it's going to be quite hard.
intuition is bullshit anyway, it's highly predicated on previous experience and an existing knowledge base, so i feel like that's kind of arguing "well a race car driver drives good, so why don't normal drivers drive good" kind of territory if you arent careful.
Yeah, which is why most people here in favor of Celcius argue that Fahrenheit isn't, in fact, more intuitive and therefore more suited to describe the weather. Both are arbitrary, both can be learned and used very easily, the only difference is what you're used to.
yeah, but i think arguing that celsius is "more intuitive" when the one primary advantage outside of science is that it lines up with water relatively nicely compared to fahrenheit, is like, ok.
32f and 212f and 0c and 100c aren't really all that substantially different as far as the general use case goes.
Exactly. Fahrenheit is just metric weather.
By that logic, Americans should use km/h instead of mph. Going 0-100 is much better than 0-60. For the same reason you keep telling us why Fahrenheit is so much more intuitive.
TWO HUNDRED AND SEVETY THREE KELVIN I'M FREEZING
41°C sounds terrifying to me
Sounds like a great time to propose my system of temperature: Super Celsius. I'll connect it to the freezing and boiling points of water just like Celsius, but while freezing remains at 0, boiling is now 1000. Get ready for a nice mild day of 250.
Once again... the classic argument of: "Well, I grew up using this system, and I'm used to the system. I have built an internal intuition for how hot and cold the temperature is. I am used to >100 being hot! 40 is not hot!"
Well then. I grew up using celcius and... "IT'S FOURTY FUCKING ONE DEGREES OUTSIDE?" sounds just as hot.
it's not about what makes more sense: what makes more sense is what you use everyday and is natural to you. 40+ C is freaking hot because when you experience it, it's freaking hot. It's about what the entire rest of the world is using as a standard.
In Ali Baba and the 40 Thieves, the number of thieves wasn't really necessarily 40. The number was likely just chosen because 40 was an exaggerated number, much like when we'd say "I've told you a hundred million times". So 40 as a shorthand for "a huge amount" seems fitting in celcius.
Strange, because it is bullshit.
Fahrenheit isn't how people feel, otherwise 50° would be perfect temperature.
You Americans are just used to thinking in Fahrenheit, that is why you think it is how humans feel. As a European, I "feel" in Celsius.
Fahrenheit literally meant to base the scale with 100 being human body temp.
It was later rescaled by Cavendish to put the freezing point of water at exactly 32 and boiling point at exactly 212, giving a nicely-divisible 180-degree separation between freezing and boiling. That shift is why body temperature is 98.6.
I like this version better than "he had a fever when he measured 100 degrees" so I will choose to believe it without further research.
I hope you are correct.
https://archive.org/details/paper-doi-10_1098_rstl_1777_0038
Seems fancy and legit, I see no reason to actually read it and confirm the info.
Welcome to peer review!
Horse* body temp
I'm pretty sure that wasn't actually Fahrenheit's intention, more a happy accident. Also if your body temp is 100°F then you're running a mild/moderate fever.
The scale was adjusted later to make freezing and boiling points land on exact numbers with an easily-divisible 180-dregrees between them (180 is divisible by 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 20, 36, 45, 60, and 90).
https://archive.org/details/paper-doi-10_1098_rstl_1777_0038
I don't usually run, but when I do, I run a mild/moderate fever.
I heard circular thermometers were how it was done then so he lined up 180° with 180°.
It literally was not.
I cited and linked my source from the 18th century when it was redefined. What's yours?
Rating inflation. If someone called you a 5 or 6 out of 10, you'd feel bad. 7/10 is the bottom of acceptability, just like 72° is room temperature.
You think that's some copium, watch this:
When you're a child having a sick-day, you get to stay home from school and watch TV, which is absolutely 💯. What temperature do you need to have to get a sick-day? 100°
In foreign units, 100° is the temperature at which water boils. What has boiling water ever done for anyone? Literally nothing. But in freedom units, water boils at 212°. 212 is a palindrome and palindromes are so cool, they could be classified as 💯. As we all know, 100 is the coolest number, which is why that's how high grades go.
Finally, using USA standards, calculating calories in food merely requires measuring how much energy is required to raise 3.5 oz water 1.8° F by burning the food and then dividing by 1000. Using your weird unpatriotic methods, you'd have to measure how much energy is required to raise 100 grams of water 1° C by burning the food and then not dividing by anything??? Sounds lame!
Someone give me a Gatorade, those mental gymnastics were a hell of a workout
Even better, I don't even feel a fever until it's 104°F. I've just looked it up, and that's exactly 40°C. Even my body likes round centigrade numbers.
riddle me this then mr european man (i assume for the context of shitposting)
would you feel ok with getting half of everything you did being completely wrong, or would you feel ok with only three of those 10 things being completely wrong.
half is formidable, like you tried, probably. 7/10 is on the way to being good at it though.
it's a question surrounding human bias on the subject of correctness. Most people would argue that 7/10 is "ok or good" where as most people would argue that 5/10 is "not the worst, but not good"
we're not fundamentally biased to the midpoint of something, we're fundamentally biased to the perceived average of something.
I love it when it's 50ish out and sunny. You don't get all sweaty, plus you can wear cozy socks and sweaters or just go out in short sleeves and both are perfectly fine. The bugs all start going into hiding at that temperature but the grass and leaves are still green
As a European I can perfectly feel the 0 degree. I step outside and 5 seconds later I can tell you if it's below zero or not.
For me "it's now really hot" in summer is exactly when it's over 30C. It being 86F doesn't make any more sense. Approximately above 35C I will avoid going outside. Which would be 95F, not 100. From here, the temps in summer in the south of Europe are often around 100F at peak. Above or below doesn't matter.
All that Fahrenheit scale is good for is if you live in a continental climate, more to the south, e.g. some useless place like Oklahoma, where 0F is approximately year low, and 100F is approximately year high.
For all other places, where the temperature delta over the course of the year is not as extreme, this Fahrenheit scale is as unintuitive as celcius, e.g. you just get used to it.
you guys need to stop converting directly between temperatures, you're right at 86f, bump it up to 90f and woah, suddenly it's actually a nice round number.
You're too conversion pilled to realize that the human experience isn't fundamentally and objectively representative. 1 degree celsius isn't super noticeable, just like 5 degrees fahrenheit isn't super noticeable either.
50 degrees is a damn good temperature. I won't stand here and let you besmirch 50 degrees.
Its not the "perfect" temperature but what temp in celcius is "perfect"? What a ridiculously proposition that there's a perfect temperature.
20 is perfect.
that's pretty comfortable, but between 50 and 70f which is about 10 and 20 c is the "comfortable range"
50F is the perfect temperature.
That's 10°C for those who want to judge you. And you're wrong, the perfect temperature is 17°C. Not too cold, not too hot.
The correct rebuttal is that 69 degrees is ideal ambient temperature.
As is typically responded to this 'response': there are a large number of people-many European-who would unironically say that 50°F (10°C) is, in fact, the ideal temperature.
They're wrong, of course, but they exist.
But you're also assuming that the exact middle of the range is where the ideal sweet spot should be. That's wrong. People generally can better handle larger temperature deviations that are colder than their ideal than hotter deviations.
The difference is that humans emit their own heat. Combined with our funny tendency to wear insulative clothing that can asymptotically approach zero net heat exchange with the atmosphere, acceptable temperatures skew wildly towards and beyond freezing.
Meanwhile, without some kind of acting cooling mechanism, any temp even slightly above fever temp is inevitably fatal. You can only take off so many layers. What are you going to do, take off your skin? Sweating helps us humans a lot, but evaporative cooling can only do so much to reverse the heat gradient.
50 F is excellent... with a light jacket or a blanket. Not so much if you're naked.
Why would you pick 50 for the perfect temp? Genuinely curious why land on that number.
Because 0° is the minimum a body is supposed to endure according to the tweet, and 100° is the maximum a body should endure.
So the ideal temperature should be right in the middle.
But it isn't, so Fahrenheit isn't "how people feel".
Why should the ideal temperature be right in the middle of the range?
It's no surprise that the maximum end of the range is right around the body temperature, as it's difficult for the body to keep itself cool once the environment is around or warmer than the body temperature. Sure, we can sweat, but that uses up a lot of water and people generally find that getting all sweaty to not be pleasant. Run out of water or raise the temperature too much and it gets dangerous pretty quickly.
On the other hand, if the environment is a lot cooler than the body temperature, then it is difficult for the body to keep warm. I'm sure for our distant ancestors who lived in what is now Africa, their minimum temperature was much higher, possibly putting the ideal temperature right around the middle of their range. Luckily for us, we have clothing and can put on more clothing to stay warm, which is how we can now make the minimum so low. But while we can use clothing to lower our minimum, we really don't have anything different to raise our maximum vs. our ancestors - we're both limited by how well we can cool ourselves by sweating. So for that reason it doesn't really surprise me that our ideal temperature is towards the upper end of what we consider the minimum and maximum temperatures.
Because it is in the middle of that "0 is really really cold, 100 is really really hot" "human feeling" fahrenheit scale you guys keep going on about.
This is the first time I've heard about a "human feeling" scale so sure, 50 must be perfect.
it is though? It's like perfectly comfortable because you can dress up just enough to where you're actually wearing a decent bit of clothing, but you can also dress down to a pretty light set of clothing as well.
This is also ignoring that this is both, arbitrary, and also completely subjective to the person.
The human body might end up liking 70f more than 50f, purely because it's 96f inside the body, so something lower to allow heat transfer, but not low enough to be physically uncomfortable would be more expected.
Actually, here's a good question, why do you land on the 50f point? Are you expecting the middle to be the most optimal point of perfection? Or is this just a metric brain thing?
What annoys me about that phrasing, is that "how water feels" is quite relevant to how humans feel.
The obvious example is that if it's below 0°C, it starts freezing, which causes slippery sidewalks, snow, dry air, all that stuff.
But just in general having a feeling how much water will evaporate and later precipitate at certain temperatures, and even stuff like how hot beverages and cooking temperatures are, it's all still relevant for humans...
Humans are mostly water. If water boils, then humans will mostly boil too.
that's an interesting idea, BUT, the boiling point for water also exists under f as well, it's just 212 f, which if you want to round for convenience, is 200f. 100f is just about half the boiling point of water.
I guess you celsius folks might be more water pilled than the average US citizen, but it's not like it's impossible.
In Celcius water boils at exactly 100°C, and you don't have to round, and 50°C is exactly half the boiling point of water.
Yes, Celsius users are waterpilled: the whole system is based on the temperature at which water freezes and evaporates at 1 atm pressure.
(You're just fucking with us right? Like Celsius is has a coarser base unit, and the range applicable to human temperatures are not such pretty numbers, but you can't be seriously thinking Fahrenheit makes more sense for when we talk about water?)
unless you're doing literal chemistry, the specific boiling point of the water doesn't matter, especially for any subjective referential experiences you might have, such as, going outside.
i'm not saying it's better, i'm just saying you're having a failure of imagination to conceptualize the usage of the fahrenheit system if you so pleased to use it in such a specific manner, which almost nobody here does. You could still do it though.
Cooking is basically water based chemistry, so it makes a lot of sense to use Celsius.
idk man, there's a lot of temperatures in cooking that are like, kind of close? Not that close, but like, kind of close. Even then, the one case where i consider it genuinely mattering is boiling water which like, you can just kinda know.
Your scale in water terms starts at 32. 100 is nowhere near halfway between 32 and 212
the celsius scale literally covers 55% of the range of the fahrenheit scale. I'd say "about half" is perfectly reasonable.
granted, it skews since you're starting on the low end. The figure is more like 122f right in the middle, which is, not great, but i wasn't going to calculate the half boiling point as i've literally never seen it be relevant anywhere lol.
Celcius degrees are quite a bit larger than Fahrenheit degrees. 0 to 100C is much larger than 0 to 100F so I don't get what you mean by Celcius covering about half of Fahrenheit. In any case neither scale runs out of numbers high or low
my main point was that accuracy matters a lot less with fahrenheit, because it's so much broader. a range of about 10 degrees fahrenheit is the average subjectively experienced "change" in temperature, at least on the higher end, where there's more difference between the individual numbers. On the cold side there's a lot less variance as it meets at about -40 in both systems.
this is very true though, hard to run out of numbers when you can just make more up, although there is an ultimate limit in either direction, due to what temperature actually measures. That's a physics thing though.
The words you are looking for are that Fahrenheit is more precise. But it's not as there are an infinity of numbers between any two integers.
My thermometer at work which I use for health and safety stuff reports temperature to two decimal places. Had we wanted more precision we could have gone with twenty decimal places. In too big or too small metric units we use multipliers - metres are too small for long distances so we use kilometres (thousands of metres), metres are too big for construction so we use millimetres (thousandths of metres)
Where Celcius degrees are too big, people (scientists, since whole degrees or a single decimal is enough for everyone else) use milikelvins
Fahrenheit is literally a German dude making a scale from, "scheiße its chilly outside" to "oh mein gott, its hot out!"
Yeah. But Celsius refers to inside room temperatures. 0°C = yay, ice skating! 100°C = yay, sauna!
Temperature doesn’t care about your feelings.
Oh, how rude.
Their friend is a dumbass though.
EDIT: replied to wrong comment
Forty-one sounds insanely hot as an outside temperature if that's the standard you're used to. And that's the thing that the Fahrentards refuse to wrap their head around.
Fahrenheit is better because 69 is a nice temperature
Celsius is better because 69 is very hot
Yes but we all know you will never experience that 69 (and I think you know it too)
What? Never been in a sauna? Do it, it's really nice!
You do experience 69°C if you go to sauna before it's warm
Meh... Give it another couple of decades.
That's why I only use Kelvin. 314.15 sounds like 3 times more "WTF HOW HOT IS TODAY??!?" than your paltry 107
Ah America, bigger is always a better isn’t it?
I present the temperature scale that I made up- the Human Scale (H°)
I thought about the Fahrenheit vs Celsius debate, and I think both have practical uses, however I think combined they could make a very practical scale.
Fahrenheit: while my American sensibilities agree that 100° is a good marker for what % of my patience is used up to cut a bitch, I think a similar place would be the average human body temperature. For this reason, 100°H = 98.6°F . It's not a perfect match, but it can still give us the satisfaction of "IT'S 100°!?" while having practical implications for medical uses "your body temperature is 102°, 2° warmer than average".
Celsius: I think this scale makes a ton of sense for colder temperatures. When the thermometer reads 0°, that's when you can expect snow. For this reason, 0°H = 0°C.
The conversation rates are:
H = (F-32) × 1.5
H= C × 2.7
More precise is
H = (F-32) × 1.501501501...
H = C × 2.7027027027...
While using the freezing point of water and the average human body temperature seem like inconsistent and arbitrary benchmarks, my goal is less about consistency and more about practicality for everyday use.
Now watch this scale grow as big as Esperanto.
Fuck it. I'm inventing a new scale.
Behold! "Disagree Degrees". We're going to combine the best traits of the other units. No more searching for the stupid little degree character in the character map. D for degrees or disagrees - whatever, I don't give a shit.
0D = 0K (Like Kelvin, no negatives! That's so dumb!) 0.4D = -40 C and -40 F 1D = Water Freezing point (Need a consistent point of scale) 10D = "Pleasant temperature" 100D = Kind of hot 500D = Really hot for people (>40C or >100F) "It's like 500 disagrees out there!" 1000D= Water boiling (To match the freezing temp) 1,000,000,000,000D = Surface of the sun
Good luck on the math converting to other units, this temperature scale isn't about being useful for nerd stuff, it's all about appealing to our emotions.
good point, but to us Celsius fans or "Celsilovers" over one hundred sounds like the apocalypse.
Which is the closest thing to a legitimate criticism of celcius that exists. The entire top half of the scale (everything over ~50°, that is) is pretty much useless as far as judging the weather is concerned.
Top half? 0-50°C is the top half. The bottom half is -50-0°C.
I hate that I agree with this lol
What? 100°F is too mild. It doesn't even boil water!
mild in what way? Do you live in death valley??? Have you ever experienced 100f? You can literally get heat exhaustion, and heat stroke from temperatures of 110f pretty easily if you aren't watching yourself, we remind ourselves of this constantly anytime it gets hot.
It doesn't even boil water.
It's slightly above my core body temperature. So yes, literally I experience it all the time.
Sauna. It's literally boiled water. And it's pretty safe for average human.
yeah and? Last i checked i'm not a pot of water.
to be clear, it's not slightly above, it's high enough that you're getting into fever range, a few degrees over that and it starts to become deadly. 105f internal temp is potentially fatal so.
the average body temperature ranges about 2 degree fahrenheit. 97f to 99f that's about the entire extent of that. 100F specifically is slightly over that in terms of general temperature experience.
thank god, i was about to do hard labor in a sauna. Not to mention this is also a sauna, not direct infrared and UV exposure to direct sunlight. Not to mention the literal temperature of the environment around it, and the indirect reflected heating that you'll receive.
guess i should now argue that cold temperatures aren't dangerous because people do ice baths regularly.
They are referring to the fact that 100 celsius literally boils water.
is that literally the entire joke?
“Bigger number is more better” also explains American sports where you get 3 points for running a bit and then play stops for an ad break and the national anthem.
celsius is the yelp of temperature ratings
In the end it's the humidity that gets you
Would it though? Because it's not like people who didn't grew up with Fahrenheit can just intuitively use and interpret it. Maybe base ten is "more intuitive", but I'd argue not to any meaningful degree. Both scales have to be explained, experienced, and tied to personal reference points.
Use the same logic to use km/h then.
0 to 100 is better than 0 to 60.
FOUR THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED MILLICELCIUS?!
You're saying this one goes up to eleven ?
41° is "mild" to me as a Celsius user only because my country is too fucking hot in the first place.
No one is gonna post this vid?!?
https://youtu.be/mR-DrvZ5VMA?feature=shared
The real reason Fahrenheit will never die!
https://youtu.be/nROK4cjQVXM
(Finnemore's conversation between Farenheit and Celsius)
Just use Kelvin. Problem solved.
I'm gonna be honest. I love Celsius for the the whole perfect math reasons with calories and water based measurement...
But the curve on temps is a pain when all the nice temperatures require using a decimal place to decide just how slightly above or below pleasant it is but cold is basically everything from 16°C to -30°C And then decimals really matter when hotter than pleasant temps.
Whole rounded integers are just so vastly different depending how high or low you are in Celsius.
I don't know man, I've lived my entire life in a country that only uses Celsius and I've never seen a single place or person using decimals to display temperature we always use whole numbers.
I get your point but the difference in 1 degree in Celsius is still very insignificant to the point we don't really need decimals at all.
My thermostat increments by 0.5c
My digital thermometers all uses decimals.
I've been all over the world. Trust me seeing 21.6 or other decimals is not uncommon you and others are really just pushing hard on the ideas that there is no flaws and none of the quirks of Celsius.
I literally just set an air conditioner to 20.5°C. I don't get why lie like this.
The reason you see fractions is BECAUSE of Fahrenheit. Your air conditioner is designed to work in multiple regions and so it works on steps. Easier to just map the half steps to Fahrenheit degrees and call it a day.
For non-electronic usage, people just say the round number.
No this was an airconditioner built for and used in Japan only. It's only in Celsius. It just uses decimal point options for finer control. I have been in plenty of places that only use Celsius and use decimals especially higher than 20s.
And still doesn't change the drastic change between the whole numbers the higher you go vs lower temps.
Edit: literally my fever thermometer uses decimals to help you get a proper temperature reading between normal and fever.
Sure the thermometer is the one place I remember decimals, but I can guarantee you no one I've ever met in my life knows the difference between 25 and 26 degrees celsius, much less decimals of it.
Specially air conditioners, they all have arrows to go up and down the temperature, you're literally just speaking from a very specific experience of one special air conditioner that had more control than most others.
Whatever it was it was intended for it was built in China for a global audience, then customized for whatever market it was sold in. They all use common software platforms.
It does indeed change that fact, because temperature is exclusively reported in whole numbers. Go to any weather channel, site, provider, etc. It’s always whole numbers, even in Celsius.
It truly doesn’t matter.
That's a really weird one, every apartment I've lived at the air conditioner only displays the temperature in integers and I'm 100% sure of that because every each one of them had arrows to change the temperature up or down in one unit.
Meh I'm about 50/50 4 air conditioners in. Half degrees has not been all that uncommon and it's up and down arrows to adjust it. I don't get the handwaving of legitimate points of comtention to make Celsius seem more perfect. Everything has its flaws. It's completely fine to admit that.
That's not the point, I haven't said Celsius is perfect not a single time here, I'm just calling your BS because you said decimals matter for us which is not true because no one that lives in a country that uses Celsius knows the difference a decimal makes, I honestly think we just really feel some difference at like 2 degrees in variation, far from decimals.
Decimals don't matter for you and you are pushing that to everyone as a way to delegitimize my point.
I use Celsius and they matter to me. I can and do notice a difference between setting my thermostat to 21.5 vs 22 vs 22.5. You don't whatever.
I said I was using Celsius but because I had a complaint you decided I was outside of your accepted user group and my statement was BS.
Its bullshit.
Yeah your point is BS, because you really don't need decimals to do most things. Good for you that you can notice decimals in difference but that's not a normal thing, most weather forecast only say the integer, most air conditioners (all as far as I've seen) tell the temperature in integer, if you talk to someone else about the weather we also talk in integer.
YOU should stop pushing the idea that decimals are important into everyone else as if they are true for everyone, because they're not.
K users
Base 10 numbers go brrrr.
Celsius peopke are cold blooded.
YOU'RE BOILING?!?
Oh, you're just an inbecile who likes to prove the movie Idiocracy is actually a documentary.
ITT: Europeans tie their personal identity to an arbitrary scale for the expression of mean entropy.
0 Degrees Farenhight = very cold, 100 Defrees Farenhight = very hot
0 Degrees Celcius = very cold, 100 Degrees Celcius = dead
0 Degrees Kelvin = dead, 100 Degrees Kelvin = also dead...
But really it is much better for human temperatures.
It's just intuitive, 0F is 100% cold, and 100F is 100% hot.
When the dry bulb gets above 100F, wind only cools you down by sweat evaporation, and when the wet bulb gets above 100F, even that can't cool you down, and you will die if you don't get to a cooler or drier environment.
"Intuitive" is a meaningless metric for a single scaled number. Whichever system you are used to will be the more "intuitive".
Also, climate can play into which system feels more useful. Where I live, 100F occurs only rarely (and since air conditioning is almost ubiquitous, not something I'd bother looking out for), while 0C is an outdoor temperature that I do need to be aware of for half the year.
I disagree that either would be just as intuitive. Fahrenheit being 0=cold and 100=hot is intuitive because there are a lot of things we do in the world that exist on a scale of 0 - 100. Percentages, just off the bat. Also, fahrenheit has a higher degree of fidelity in the temperature range that we use.
Celsius's general temperature scale is like -10 - 40 which is absolutely not intuitive because it doesn't look like any other scale we use as humans. I agree that we get used to Celsius fast and it's a fine it's not like it's super confusing (and Celsius is so much more useful scientifically).
Which system did you grow up with? Because I grew up from the start with Celsius und it is 100% intuitive to me. Everytime you americans use your funny temperature numbers I have to stop and use a tool for transforming it or I simply ignore it and go "low means cold and high means hot, how high? Ain't nobody got time for dat!"
So I disagree with your notion that Fahrenheit is intuitive. The system you grew up with and have multiple experiences as reference points for, is the system you feel is intuitive is also my opinion.
That's not either scale being intuitive or unintuitive, that's your familiarity with one over the other.
I got curious so I did some research on the definitions and why everything is this way. It looks like they originally picked the coldest thing they had (brine, possibly inspired by the coldest weather), the freezing point of water, human body temperature, and the boiling point of water. It was supposed to be brine at 0, water freezing at 30, the human body at 90, and water boiling at 240. Fahrenheit then recalibrated his scale slightly to make his math (and thermometer design and production) easier, and also because he noticed water actually boiled at 212 by his newly modified scale.
Looking at it like that work the context of what they had at the time and what they were trying to do, it makes a lot of sense.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit#History
Never said either one can't be intuitive, just that the scale of farenheit has a precedence outside of it being an arbitrary temperature measurement by being a scale that goes from about 0 - 100.
If you had never used either scale and some one asked: "which is more intuitive, a temperature scale where -10 is really cold and 40 is really hot or one where 0 is really cold and 100 is really hot?" I know which one I would pick because I've done things before like calculate percentages and work in a base 10 system so it makes sense for the scale to be between two orders of magnitude.
But that is what we others are saying: there is no "more intuitive" system, just one you know better and can quicker evaluate how it would feel! So you agree with us.
Everything you said can be said about Celsius scale as well.
There is also a precedence for Celsius more than just an arbitrary number between 0 & 100.
A scale for liquid water, you know, the stuff that is the reason why we call our little spaceship "the blue marble"and why we even have this discussion, because it is the basis of all life on earth, is also not a bad choice for a number between 0-100.
And you made me curious: in what context did you have to calculate percentages of temperature that were not in Kelvin? Because as soon as percentages and temperatures are close to each other in one sentence the only example I can think of are things like reaction kinetic calculations and those are neither in Celsius nor in Fahrenheit.
You should examine your definition of intuitive. Yes, technically nothing is intuitive it's just based on what you know because intuition is also based on what you're used to.
By your logic, if you compare a machine that powers on by pressing a big glowing red button labeled "ON" and one that turns on by you performing the haka in front of a camera while reciting a Shakespeare sonnet backwards you might say that there is no "more intuitive" way to turn on a machine, just one you know better and can perform quicker!
You aren't reading what you're replying to because I said in a previous post that it's easy to get used to Celsius and fahrenheit and there's no difference to either and I also already said that Celsius is better for science because it's based on water.
At this point you're just lying or further proving that you didn't even read the post you tried to respond patronizingly to. I said that the Fahrenheit scale is intuitive because it's a 0-100 scale which is similar to other scales we use all the time and works well for our base 10 counting system being a scale essentially between two powers of 10. Neither of that can be said for Celsius and that's so obvious I think you just didn't read it before replying.
And hell, on top of all this, I think we should all switch to using Celsius! Because as I mentioned it's easy to grasp both scales and using Celsius makes understanding a lot of science easier which I think is the only real argument in this arbitrary choice between the two! But I'm out here explaining the use of Fahrenheit because people here can't grasp my explanation for why people might use it and are acting like they've got the defeater to a post they didn't even read!
But fahrenheit is not a 0-100 scale. You have just arbitrarily picked out 0-100 because that makes your brain more easily understand the non-intuitive system which is fahrenheit.
What you grew up with =/= what is intuitive.
That is not what intuitive means. You're talking about what's "familiar".
Familiarity is subjective. Intuitiveness is objective.
If we want to go that road, intuition is according to Wikipedia:
Since every temperature system needs an explanation, namely the reference points, no system is or even can be intuitive per this definition.
"cold" and "hot" are completely non-descriptive and useless parameters for your supposed "intuitive" system.
It has only been 100°F once in the last century. Nobody has any point of reference to make this intuitive. 30°C/85°F is defined as hot around here. 40°C/100°F is defined as national emergency.
The heat index gets over 100°F in much of the southern US every summer
"It has only been 100F once in the last century"
Lmao what?? Go ahead and find me a source for that.
I guarantee you it reaches 100F regularly during summer in many temperate climates, that's not even including warmer regions.
Do you think your little small town is the only place in the universe?
Not when it's near the sea, like most of western Europe. It's the same shit as "why don't you have airco?" Because it was never that hot.
Tell that to the gulf coast, or Mexico, or central America, or Africa, or Australia.
Your experiences are not universal. Just because you've never seen 100F doesn't mean no one else has. That's absurd.
I love it when it's -10% hot in winter nights or 110% hot around the equator. Makes perfect sense.
Yes, it does, actually, if you understand how thermal energy works.
Yes, it does a better job of impressing that is all of the hot (or cold), and then 10% more than the difference between 38 and 43
So 50% is perfect temperature, no?
How is 0F 100% cold though, most places will never get that cold, so it surely makes more sense to have 0F at freezing point of water and 100F at 38C?
Not to mention negative numbers.
Freezing point of pure water - but saltwater/brine freezes as a different temperature.
pure water at mean atmosphere pressure at sea level if we're getting technical, but frankly human body temperature varies from 35.5C (95.9F) to 37.5C (99.5F) anyway, and that's before considering when people are ill, so if we go down that route it falls apart quickly enough that the definition of 100 given above is clearly just as arbitrary
I'm okay with "mean atmosphere pressure" bc that's what is most likely to occur, whereas pure water seems far less likely to be found in a coastal village. The oddness of the measuring abilities of the devices made at the time is a more damning argument, but less for them back then and more for us now. Still, roughly negative ten to 40 for Celsius vs. roughly zero to one hundred for Fahrenheit, the latter does seem to use more "natural" numbers, even if nothing else about non-metric systems makes any sense.
Is 50°F 50% cold or 50% hot?
Lol, 0F is not 100% cold. That is barely cold unless you live in very warm place like tropic or something
Do you live in northern canada?
Europe
People do live outside of North America. I know that must be news to you, but it is the truth.
Fahrenheit is such a nice system. 0 is really, really cold and 100 is really really hot. So 50 must just be perfect, right?
Way more intuitive then Celsius.
Fahrenheit is best for ambient temperatures. 0 F is what humans feel is a very cold day, and 100 F is what humans feel is a very hot day.
Celsius is best for literally everything else, but for humans feeling of ambient temperature Fahrenheit is best
only if you grow up with fahrenheit.
100F was defined as the human body temperature (The guy they used had a cold or something so it's off by a degree and a half.)
That's useful for perception of heat. When the dry bulb gets above 100F, wind only cools you down by sweat evaporation, and when the wet bulb gets above 100F, even that can’t cool you down, and you will die if you don’t get to a cooler or drier environment.
This is more intuitive than 36.5C.
what Fahrenheit used for his endpoints was 1) the melting point of a brine mixture that he didn't write down the ratio of, and 2) his wife's armpit.
those "bulb" things is something i only ever hear of from americans. it's never used here.
and I fail to see how two numbers are somehow differently intuitive. they are just numbers. also, 36.5 is too low. it's pretty much 37.0 now, because average body temp has interestingly enough shifted since he took those measurements.
What does Europe use for apparent temperature measurement then? Just humidity and not evaporation?
temperature, wind speed and direction, and humidity are given separately. regular news report style forecasts don't give humidity at all.
What's a dry/wet bulb?
Dry bulb is a normal temperature reading with say a thermometer. Wet bulb is that same thermometer but it is wrapped in a wet cloth to simulate evaporation of sweat.
The purpose of wet bulb temperature measurement is to fix the dangerous temperature threshold at body temperature instead of having to adjust for humidity. So if the wet bulb temperature crosses 35C/95F you know that it is dangerous to even be outside because your sweat can't even evaporate enough to prevent you from overheating just standing in the shade.
Dry bulb is the temperature independent of humidity. Wet bulb is has a wet cloth on the thermometer bulb. This simulates how much sweat cools you in the current humidity and wind.
Measuring humidity instead and cross-referencing to get heat index is more common these days, but IMO it's worse. 120 in the desert vs 120 heat index due to humidity is the difference between someone using a hair dryer on your face and getting cooked in a steam room, and it doesn't consider wind and cloud cover.
Wait, doesn't everybody walk around with a pocket psychrometric chart?
So you're saying that 0 and 100 aren't intuitively obvious? I find that really strange when it's doing a better job keeping to base 10 than the metric system in this particular use case.
the numbers may be, but if you asked me to tell you what they feel like i would have to convert them to celsius first. where i live temperatures are generally between -30 and +30, and i could tell you in an instant what I would wear for a given temperature in that range. 50F though? no clue. since it's right between 0 and 100 i guess it would be just right, temperature wise, so t-shirt and long pants?
Can you remember that at temperatures near 0F and 100F, you need to take special precautions when going outside? The rest is a matter of getting used to what the numbers mean, but those are very intuitive danger points.
-18 is such an arbitrary place for "special precautions". at 0, I know to start driving more carefully since the roads ice up. at -15, i know to wear long johns. at +15, i know to start using a thinner jacket. at -30, i know to use a thick hat and wax on my cheeks to prevent the blood vessels from rupturing. at +30, I know to use a large hat and sun cream on my cheeks to prevent them from burning.
cool little trick, you see how -18 is like, pretty close to -20, yeah. You can just round them. It really doesn't matter
see, that's what i'm saying. having a scale that starts at "it really doesn't matter" makes it hard to use for everyday things.
yeah no shit, but think of it this way, if you were put into a place that was 100f, you would go "damn this bitch hot out here" and if you were put into a place that was 0f you would go "damn this joint cold as fuck fr"
Stop thinking in celsius.
why would i stop? there's only one place in the world that uses another scale, and it's dangerous for me to even travel there.
because we're not talking about celsius? We're talking about fahrenheit?
This is like pulling up to a car meet in a semi truck, and being really confused when nobody thinks your ride is sick.
the parent post was literally about Fahrenheit vs Celsius.
What if it was 99f? Or 1f? Would your scientific "damn this bitch hot out here" change to something else?
no? Because it's not entirely hinged around the temperature being one specific number???
Do you think the human body is a perfectly accurate thermometer?
When it comes to a single number on a scale, whatever you grew up with will be more "obvious". 100F doesn't give me any more information than 38C does. The whole "base 10" thing only matters if you are actually doing some math to that number.
Base 10 makes it much easier to remember.
When was the last time you did math related to temperature?
For day to day use, it's just a single number, no one is doing any conversions, etc, with the number. That was my point. There's nothing to remember. Do you forget what 72F feels like? Do you have to scale it in your head?
base 10 is literally just 0-9 so yeah, everyone remembers that.
scaling based on the base 10 figure makes conversions easier, so there's that.
Kelvin is used for math pretty regularly. Rankine was too.
100F definitely gives more insight as to the temperature. It's a 100/100. That's as hot as a person can really tolerate. If you understand percentages or how to rate things on a scale of 1-10, you understand fahrenheit.
There's large chunks of the world proving that false every day. For the geographically impared, the simple fact that Phoenix has existed for longer than air conditioning, proves that statement false.
And 0F as the low point is equally as useless.
fun fact about phoenix, going outside on a day that's about 100f, is not fucking pleasant they literally have air misters to help provide cooling, which barely does anything.
People are just fucking insane and will live in places like alaska where the ground is literally frozen all year round. Phoneix AZ is not "habitable", it's bearable. Also a lot of these places, especially in hotter dryer regions, will have covered sidewalks to provide shade, (at least historically) people would and still do wear large hats to block a lot of the sun. Even then a lot of people wouldn't spend a whole bunch of time outside in that heat.
also, have you seen death valley? It kills people, every fucking year.
That's why I used the qualifier "really" and in another comment I mentioned "in average temperate climates" If you were more familiar with statistics you would understand how means and outliers work. Just like someone can score a movie an 11/10 or a -1/10, it is possible for the weather to exceed 100F or drop below 0F. Just not typical.
And while I didn't say it specifically, 0F is similarly the average lowest temperature a person can tolerate/expect before beginning to experience problems.
Hypothermia can be a problem in temperatures as high as 50F. 0F is a meaningless number, outside of purely subjective "it's cold" uses.
For Celsius, 0 is freezing cold and 100 is boiling hot - that's intuitive too.
I have literally never felt 0°F in my life and couldn't tell you how cold it is, just that it's very cold. I believe everyone has a rough understanding how 0°C and 100°C feel though.
It is intuitive, and that's fine. Having the same intuition around human comfort zones is also fine. One measurement system can't really cover everything.
People tend not to want to live in places where it's routinely under 0F or over 100F. You'll tolerate it, but you won't like it. It's a very natural range of human comfort.
No, they're not. I couldn't tell what those numbers mean even if you asked, but I can tell what 0°C outside feels, and what 100°C sauna feels. I can also tell that 21°C is a nice ambient temperature for chilling, and 15-20°C is ideal for most outdoor sports.
Yeah sure those are not necessarily nice round numbers, but I've used the scale all my life so it's intuitive to me, same as the Fahrentrash is intuitive to you
No, that's not how this works.
You understand the concept of a scale. If I asked you to rate something on a scale of 1-10, you know what i mean. It has nothing to do with intuitiveness. If I asked you to rate something on a scale of 7-23, you'd know what I mean, even though the numbers are different than what you're used to.
So if I said it was 100F outside, you'd know that's very uncomfortably hot, as hot as a normal person can really tolerate, because you'd recognize it as the high end of the scale.
Everyone can understand fahrenheit, some people just try really hard not to.
You really don't understand what reference points are. The scale is useless without reference points, and I'm not accustomed to them while I have very clear ones for Celsius.
Sure I can understand that 100F feels very hot, but if I was outside in that temperature I couldn't tell you an estimate in Fahrenheit how hot it feels
0 and 100 aren't just "very cold" and "very hot". They are potentially dangerously so, and you need to take extra precautions at temperatures beyond those limits. You don't necessarily have to understand it beyond that.
It is pretty funny how your supposed completely intuitive human feeling system needs to have all these disclaimers added to it whenever you try to explain it. Perhaps it is only intuitive because you are used to it after all?
The reference points are 0 and 100! You don't have to get accustomed to them, they are the same reference points used by the entire base-10 numerical system. It is a percentage.
And yes, you could step out into 100F degree heat and accurately estimate the temperature. Is it the hottest day of summer? Are you beginning to experience symptoms of heat fatigue? Are you saying to yourself "This is one of the hottest days I have ever experienced", all the same stuff you'd think if you stepped outside into 37.8C weather. Then it's probably close to the high end of the scale, i.e. 100F.
Okay so you're making lot of weird assumptions here. I don't know how hot weather 37°C feels, other than that for me 30+ is absolute hell. I've never experienced heatwave that bad for what I remember. Hottest summer days here are just about 30°C, and it's miserable.
Reference point means that I'm able to easily understand what that temperature is.
I can easily understand 100°C though, sauna is getting too hot and I should open window and chill down with feeding the fire.
For 0-30 I can easily understand how I should dress outside, and 0°C is easy to understand because just above it and I know it's going to be wet and slippery if there was negatives before it, and below 0 is slippery if there was positives earlier.
What is intuitive to you is totally a subjective experience based on your earlier experiences and what you're used to use to measure temperatures.
If you'd say it is 100F outside, I wouldn't know what you mean because I have no concept of Fahrenheit. Is 100F actually hot? What is that in Celsius? Do you mean hot as in "better to wear light clothes" or "Do not set a foot outside or you will melt"?
What does it mean "as hot as a normal person can really tolerate"? What about a abnormal person?
It gives nothing of information. Just a rough indication of what it might be. Which isn't useful at all.
Do you understand the base-10 numerical system? Do you understand percentages? Congratulations, you understand fahrenheit. You can no longer honestly say, on the internet or otherwise, that fahrenheit is meaningless to you. You are now a fahrenheit understander, whether you like it or not.
Also, your second statement answers your first question. When I say "as hot as a normal person can tolerate" i do not mean "wear light clothes", I mean "as hot as a normal person can tolerate". Thats why i said "as hot as a normal person can tolerate". Happy to clear that up you for you.
Abnormalities/outliers are not something on which we should base standards of measurements.
You keep saying this but it still doesn't make any sense. 50% heat would be average middle of the pack nice? And "as hot as normal person can tolerate" is full of shit because neither you or I have no concept of what "normal person can tolerate", as the normal depends on your geography. And this is quite a good reason why claiming "Fahrenheit is how human feels" is just idiotic as it relies both on a specific climate and having learned that scale growing up.
I swear you Americans can get so fucking stupid on this topic, it's like claiming that Finnish is the most intuitive language because it's the language of how love (average love, excluding outliers obviously) feels
They aren't. And fahrenheit is not a 0-100 scale. It is just the scale you picked out of it in order to make some kind of sense out of the non-intuitive system which it is.
fahrenheit doesn't exist if you use celsius i guess??
It doesn't, because celsius users doesn't think about fahrenheit at all.
yeah, and it seems to me like they're the wrong ones here, because i can think about things in celsius perfectly fine without my worldview imploding, in fact i can pretty accurately estimate temperature conversions even.
Like it's great that you guys don't have to use it, but please think about it a little bit harder before saying something really goofy that can be explained easily. Or just like, shitpost.
Um. No.
If I said a movie was a 7/10, you would understand what that means because it's a scale. You don't have to "grow up" using a 0-10 scale to understand it.
Like if I asked you to rate something on a scale of 4-17, you'd understand what I mean. The numbers are different but the concept of a scale remains the same.
if I knew that you are a european and you told me a movie was 5/10, i would assume it was average. if i knew you were American, i would assume it was dogshit.
Americans have a weird relationship with numbers.
also, as mentioned in another post: if 0 is too cold and 100 is too hot, surely 50 would be a pleasant temperature?
Dear god, is Fahrenheit the reason behind meaningless movie ratings? Another reason to hate it…
"Americans" ah, I see. You don't actually care about effective systems of measurement, you just want to shit on people that are different from you.
Also, as answered in another post: Why would you assume that humans, an endothermic species, prefers exactly 50% thermal energy? Of course we sit around the 70F region, we're warm-blooded mammals. We don't want to be half cold, we want to be mostly warm.
No matter how much you complain or argue, it's never going to be true that Celsius is the one-and-only most perfect system of temperature measurement. The fact is that both systems have their applications, as any intelligent member of the scientific community would tell you.
Get over it.
considering america is the only place that uses it, i can't really find any other factor to use.
the point of a temperature scale is to quantify temperature as to ease its communication. if one player is using a different scale that's just complicating things.
also, if its an "intuitive" scale, surely it should take human bias into account?
Really not. Basically, you just need to peg feelings to a number, just like you are doing.
Celsius:
below -20 = deadly even with good gear, you can't spend long here
-15 = very dangerous / deadly
-10 = starting to get dangerous
-5 = starting to get uncomfortable
0 = very cold
5 = cold
10 = a little cold
15 = cool
20 = nice
25 = warm
30 = hot
35 = starting to get uncomfortable
40 = starting to get dangerous
45 = very dangerous / deadly
50+ = deadly even with good gear, you can't spend long here
I don't think you understand what I said.
Also, that's a lot of explaining, and lots of feelings associated with arbitrary numbers. Fahrenheit doesn't need anywhere near that level of explanation. It doesn't necessitate the pegging of feelings to random numbers.
The sentence "Fahrenheit is a 0-100 scale of how hot it is outside" is all anyone needs to immediately understand and be able to use fahrenheit. I didn't need to type out a long list of what each temperature value means to me. There is no need for a mneumonic such as "10 is cold, 20s not, 30s warm, and 40s hot"
If you're doing math in a lab, absolutely use Celsius. I'm not saying it doesn't have a place. It's just not the be-all end-all most perfectest temperature measurement system ever.
I think you are projecting your feeling onto others; I don't have "a mneumonic" in my head. That was for your benefit, since you are not immersed in that scale.
When I see the weather report and it says tomorrow it is going to be 25 degrees with light wind, I know that it will be a pleasant day. The same way I know what the reporter is saying, I have been immersed in the English language since birth, it requires no though to understand the words they are saying.
It requires no thought to understand that 25 degrees and light wind is a nice day. It just is.
I don't have that intuitive sense for the F scale, I always have to convert it to a sensible number. I know 100 is around 37, which is really hot.
But it requires you to be familiar with an arbitrary -20 - 40 scale. Which makes way less sense than a 0-100 scale.
I don't need to use the mnemonic either, I grew up in the U.S. so I understand both systems perfectly well. But the mnemonic exists because Celsius uses an inherently less sensible scale. You only understand it internally because you grew up with it. A person who grew up with neither system would find fahrenheit easier to understand from an unbiased position because it's more logical.
deg C is no more arbitrary than deg F; any more than French is more arbitrary than English.
It is a strange argument to say "You only understand it internally because you grew up with it."; well yes, but that is exactly the same with the deg F scale.
In your opinion.
In my opinion it is far more logical to base you temperature scale on repeatable physical measurements, than say what a person feels.
0 C = water freezes
0 F =
100 C = water boils
100 F = best estimate for average human body temperature.
The F scale is not built on logic.
Your 0-100 scale is just as arbitrary, in fact even more, since it doesn't even cover the daily temperatures huge parts of the global population lives in.
But to understand "x out of a possible y" you have to understand scales, or at least percentages which is the same concept. Then, if you understand percentages, you understand fahrenheit.
Honestly more places should do what the U.S. does and just teach both (and Kelvin). Because ultimately there isn't one perfect system of measurement for every possible application. Celsius is of course better in lab settings, Fahrenheit is better for cooking and meteorology.
Honestly, I thought I'd deleted that comment before you replied. I'd broken my promise to myself of never commenting in the celsius/fahrenheit threads.
I understand. Tbh, I usually try to stay out of arguments too, but the fahrenheit debate is pretty low-stakes and kinda fun sometimes so I figured I'd jump in.
this is so true, but the thing the celsiouds won't understand, that the farenheitoids haven't realized, is that the celsius users die (not literally) in heat of about 85 f which for any fahrenheit user is, literally a nice summer day.
EDIT: i'm making a joke about the UK heat waves, since people don't seem to realize that.
It has LAYERS!
would someone explain to me why whenever european people are confronted with the idea of the imperial system their brain seems to shutdown into a slow state of oxygen preservation? I genuinely don't understand it.
"40c in f is 104????" yeah, round it, its 100f, you think we specify to the Nth degree here?
"86f doesn't really make sense" yeah, round it. 90 is pretty close, and who boy 90s are pretty hot.
"why isn't 50f the perfect temperature" you're literally just applying an arbitrary point on something entirely arbitrary. But ok. (also it is the perfect temperature range between 50-70f)
"how is -17c and 37c cold and hot???" literally round it bro, -20 and 40c are right there wow look at that now it makes more sense! Im pretty sure this commenter is aussie or something, so in their defense, anything under 70f is cold for them. Either that or they don't wear clothes, ever, because they're calculating the coldness with no clothing. for some reason.
"yeah but we also think of things in relation to the temperature of water, like freezing is when shit is icy, and also the relation to the boiling point" brother, water boils in fahrenheit as well (212f, but again, you're going to shocked by this one, you can round it down to 200f, wow look at that, it's like, pretty close.) sure the freezing point is still higher, but you really only get freezes here at super prolonged periods of just under 30f weather, or really cold snaps that stick around a bit. generally snow in 30f weather is, not really a thing, the ground is still warm enough it melts. ice doesn't form unless it's like, close to 0.
guys, i promise, it's not this hard. Just, think about it a little bit, please. You're killing me here!