this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2023
1385 points (100.0% liked)

196

16574 readers
1897 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

I have only had the temperature described to me in celcius so Fahrenhite makes no sense to me.

What doesn't make sense to you. You can think of F as a percentage of how hot it is. 0 is 0% hot, meaning cold as fuck. 100 is 100% hot, hot as fuck. Things in the middle are are in the middle. 85 is 85% hot.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So 50 F is the ideal temperature?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why do you just assume 50% is the ideal?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If 0 F is 0 % hot, and 100 F is 100 % hot; shouldn't 50 F be the Goldilocks ideal of neither too hot or too cold at 50 %?

And if 50 F isn't the Goldilocks ideal, then where on the scale is it?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That would depend on personal preference. Somewhere around the 70-80 mark most likely.

You're assuming humans have no preference for it being hot or cold. That's the only way 50% would make more sense. But most people prefer it warm

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

My assumption was that a temperature scale for the human experience would place the ideal temperature around the middle, and not towards too hot. Would it improve such a scale if the 0 F was closer where 20 or 30 is currently, so that 70-80 is more centered? Is 0 F the perfect point for where it's unacceptably cold for a human, or could it have been shifted up or down the scale?

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And -5 farenheit is.. just a bit colder than fuck? I understand what temperatures I start feeling cold perfectly well in Celsius, I know roughly when I'll need a jacket, when I'll need a hat and scarf... Farenheit tells me nothing because I don't know about it. Sure, 0 is very cold, but where is "cold enough to wear a jacket"? It's most likely never going to reach 0°F where I live, and it won't reach 100°F outside of very rare summer days... Beyond those extremes it's not useful to me because I don't know it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Sure, 0 is very cold, but where is “cold enough to wear a jacket”?

This is going to vary depending on everyone. I start wearing a jacket at around 60. My wife starts at like 75. So neither system is going to be able to tell you that information

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Checks temp converter

Lol. 80F is approximately 26C. That's considered mild where I live.

So yeah. Makes fuckall sense to people who've grown up with temperature mentioned in Celcius everywhere.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How does this refute anything in my comment? 80% is fairly "mild". When 100% i "as hot as it can be", and 0 is "as cold as it can be", 80% is a pretty good temperature.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Lol can't tell, is this 85% stupid or closer to 100?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Are percentages too hard for you?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not nearly as hard as you are working to represent F in chat about personal preference

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I WILL die on this hill. But preference is just what you do with the information, not the usefulness of the scale. 0-100 is the scale. Whether you wear jackets at 50-60 or 60-70 doesn't mean that the scale isn't objectively better.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oh yea I think I do agree with you that the C scale is objectively better.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Cope harder. F is objectively better for environment. C is objectively better for scientific calculation

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Oof you really trying to get others to die on that hill with ya huh?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

You're objectively dumb

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What about 102? Or 3000 (for metals)?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

102%, aka hot as fuck. The whole point is that it describes human environmental temperature. If you're dealing with melting metals, that's a scientific application and C would be the better choice