319
70=sixty-ten / 80=four-twenties / 90= four-twenty-ten
(thelemmy.club)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2026
319 points (96.0% liked)
memes
22371 readers
3395 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I can't be certain that this is the exact reason, but I believe it's because metric units are based on measurements of fresh water at sea level. 1 kg = 1 litre = 1 m³ of fresh water at sea level. If fresh water at sea level has been used to standardize everything else, then why wouldn't you use it as the standard to calibrate a scale of 0 (least water movement) to 100 (most water movement)?
The problem with using K back when ⁰C were being standardized is that it's really really difficult to get your hands on some absolute zero. Also, since we generally use ⁰C to measure things here on Earth, I'd argue that the basis for C is just as arbitrary as the basis for metric. I think the equivalent of arguing for K over C would be to argue for light years or astronomical units over kilometres.
I'm not arguing for K over C. I'm arguing that C and F are both fine. People acting like C is fundamentally better are mistaken. They're both just setting 0 as some useful value that we can still go below.
Temperature is a measure of movement. If we can continue to lower or raise the temperature, these are not the lowest or highest values for movement.
And people arguing for C because it's metric are just wrong, because it isn't metric. It's frequently used by the same people who use the metric system, but it isn't metric. The metric unit for temperature is K.
I agree that K is impractical. C and F have far more utility in everyday life. In my opinion, they're both fine. For cooking, I tend to think in C. For weather, I tend to think in F. They're both just arbitrary choosing useful values, and this means they're both useful for different things.
You know what? This is completely on me. I put words in your mouth by saying that C is just as reasonable as m, l, and g, but at no point did you voice support one way or the other. For all I know, your arguments across the spectrum may be based on absolute values. Perhaps you prefer measurements for time and distance based on the hyperfine transition of hydrogen, and weight based on atomic mass.
I was pushing the rationale that arguing for metric units, which are based on freshwater at sea level, but against C, which is also based on (the perceived states of) freshwater at sea level, is an inconsistent argument. But, once again, you didn't push that narrative; I made assumptions and attributed that narrative to you.