Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday July 27 2017, @06:49PM   Printer-friendly
from the There's-nothing-hotter-than-ITS-90 dept.

At face value, measuring the temperature using Celsius instead of Fahrenheit seems to make sense. After all, the freezing point of water in Celsius is a perfect 0 degrees C — not that inexplicable 32 degrees, as in Fahrenheit. Also, the boiling point of water in Celsius is right at 100 degrees (Okay, 99.98, but what's a couple hundredths of a degree among friends?), instead of the awkward 212 degrees Fahrenheit.

But Fahrenheit may be the best way to measure temperature after all. Why? Because most of us only care about air temperature, not water temperature.

Celsius is great for measuring the temperature of water. However, we're human beings who live on dry ground. As a result, it's best to use a temperature gauge that's suited to the air, as opposed to one that's best used for water. This is one reason why Fahrenheit is superior.

Fahrenheit is also more precise. The ambient temperature on most of the inhabited world ranges from -20 degrees Fahrenheit to 110 degrees Fahrenheit — a 130-degree range. On the Celsius scale, that range is from -28.8 degrees to 43.3 degrees — a 72.1-degree range. This means that you can get a more exact measurement of the air temperature using Fahrenheit because it uses almost twice the scale.

A precise reading of temperature is important to us because just a little variation can result in a perceivable level of discomfort. Most of us are people who are easily affected even by even slight changes in the thermometer, and the Fahrenheit scale is more sensitive to those changes.

It seems the author is saying that nobody uses fractions of degrees in day-to-day life, so Fahrenheit is a better scale because it has smaller increments. I'm not sold on this, because you'll get the same temperature variation within a room whether you set your air-conditioning system to 21°C or 70°F, and people will complain that they prefer the room to be a bit warmer/cooler/whatever.

Does anyone here have another reason for advocating the continued use of the Fahrenheit scale ?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by rondon on Thursday July 27 2017, @07:02PM (42 children)

    by rondon (5167) on Thursday July 27 2017, @07:02PM (#545343)

    I think Fahrenheit does a better job of capturing the current air temperatures in comfortable numbers for people. So much of our number system is optimized for the 0-100 range, which is the temps most people live in. -10 to 40 feels sub optimal by comparison. Of course, I like Celsius better for science (which maybe ought to be in Kelvin?), so what do I know?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 27 2017, @07:17PM (12 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 27 2017, @07:17PM (#545355)

    I don't understand what you mean by "our number system is optimized."

    BTW In Phoenix right now it's 105°F or 41°C [weather.gov]

    • (Score: 2) by rondon on Thursday July 27 2017, @07:22PM (9 children)

      by rondon (5167) on Thursday July 27 2017, @07:22PM (#545363)

      I did a poor job of phrasing there. I meant that our system of presenting numbers is often optimized for values from 0 to 100. One example is percentages, which are nearly always presented in that form. Another would be cash, which is denominated in bills from 1 to 100. It seems like humans have a propensity to use that scale more often than others, except for maybe the 1 to 10 scale, which 1 to 100 is simply a more precise representation.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 27 2017, @07:35PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 27 2017, @07:35PM (#545371)

        I'm not that dumb I can tie my own shoes.

        • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 27 2017, @09:32PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 27 2017, @09:32PM (#545454)

          But I can fuck your bitch.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 27 2017, @07:54PM (4 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 27 2017, @07:54PM (#545388)

        The Celsius scale was originally designed with 0 degrees as the boiling point of water and 100 degrees for the temperature of melting ice (it's now the reverse). The Fahrenheit scale was originally designed [straightdope.com] with 32 degrees as the temperature of melting ice and 96 degrees as human body temperature (it's now based on a melting point of 32 degrees and a boiling point of 212 degrees for water). "Zero was the temperature of a mix of ice, water, and ammonium chloride....100 means nothing on the Fahrenheit scale, 96 used to mean something but doesn't anymore, and 0 is colder than it ever gets in Denmark."

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 28 2017, @12:47AM (3 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 28 2017, @12:47AM (#545545)

          96 is a great number because it's 3 times 32 and there's a ton of factors. That's somewhat less important in modern times with so much easy access to computational power that it's not an issue. But it's quite nice when doing math in your head.

          • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Friday July 28 2017, @09:31PM (2 children)

            by maxwell demon (1608) on Friday July 28 2017, @09:31PM (#545988) Journal

            Except than doing multiples of non-absolute temperature values, no matter whether Celsius, Fahrenheit, Reaumur or whatever, does not make the slightest sense, therefore divisibility of temperatures doesn't matter.

            --
            The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 29 2017, @12:46AM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 29 2017, @12:46AM (#546072)

              Sure it does, it makes precisely as much sense as taking multiples of absolute temperature values. If you want to estimate how long you need to let boiling water sit out until it's cool enough for brewing tea, you would be doing multiplication with non-absolute temperatures.

              Granted, people don't usually do that, but it's a reason why having nice numbers is nice.

              • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Saturday July 29 2017, @06:24AM

                by maxwell demon (1608) on Saturday July 29 2017, @06:24AM (#546165) Journal

                You won't let your water cool down from body temperature to the freezing point of water for making tea, so for your "use case" the divisibility of the temperature difference between those two values is irrelevant.

                Not to mention that the cooling process is driven be the temperature difference between the water and the surrounding (which depending on the circumstances may be more divisible in either scale).

                Also note that the ideal brewing temperature is actually a temperature range, so in both scales, you can just pick a number from your range that eases your calculation.

                --
                The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
      • (Score: 2) by requerdanos on Thursday July 27 2017, @11:05PM

        by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 27 2017, @11:05PM (#545506) Journal

        One example is percentages, which are nearly always presented in [values from 0 to 100].

        Perhaps that's because it's from the Latin per centum, which literally means [thefreedictionary.com] "one one-hundredth part" or "on the basis of a rate/proportion per hundred".

        For counterexamples, we have human weight, with pounds ranging approximately from 0 to ~200+, kg 0 to 90, stone 0 to 14, with higher values for fat somewhat larger than average people.

      • (Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Friday July 28 2017, @01:37PM

        by fyngyrz (6567) on Friday July 28 2017, @01:37PM (#545752) Journal
    • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday July 27 2017, @09:56PM (1 child)

      by Grishnakh (2831) on Thursday July 27 2017, @09:56PM (#545472)

      No, Fahrenheit is correct for Phoenix too.

      The simple rule with Fahrenheit is: if it's below 0 or above 100, it's too extreme for humans to live in. Which means the Phoenix is uninhabitable for part of the year. Does it really matter if it's 110 or 118? No, either one is much too hot to be outside.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 27 2017, @11:55PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 27 2017, @11:55PM (#545529)

        But people can survive in below-zero and above-100 temperatures just fine. Unless you mean those are temps where people die of exposure, in which case you're wrong, it's more like 45 to 110

  • (Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday July 27 2017, @07:57PM (6 children)

    by frojack (1554) on Thursday July 27 2017, @07:57PM (#545390) Journal

    Celsius / Fahrenheit Debate. Hold on a sec till I get the popcorn!!!

    So much of our number system is optimized for the 0-100 range

    Pretty much true.

    People don't deal well with decimals, until machines are handling the numbers.
    Humans deal best with one or two digit numbers they can carry in their head.
    One digit temperatures were too imprecise, three digits too much precision for every day use.

    Time, Money, Temperatures, Weights, and Volumes, virtually all everyday measurements, are all arbitrarily set up to accommodate this human limitation / preference.

    I maintain Neither scale was optimized. They just happened to choose two different and equally arbitrary start and end points.

    This concept of Fahrenheit's "precision" might make sense in an analog world. Once you go digital, there is no reason for the bias.
    There was only so much precision to be had with the tools THEN at hand OR in the human mind.

    Nobody worries about decimal places when dealing with temperatures in everyday life. Regardless of scale.

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 27 2017, @08:03PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 27 2017, @08:03PM (#545395)

      > They just happened to choose two different and equally arbitrary start and end points.

      They're both defined by the melting point of ice and the boiling point of water.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 28 2017, @12:44AM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 28 2017, @12:44AM (#545544)

      The only reason there's still an argument about this is because of snooty Eurotrash. Celsius is great for scientific research and the like, it's terrible for use by humans for weather.

      Celsius was defined based upon the range from frozen water ice to boiling water. Both are at sea level, so, if you're not at sea level the measures make little sense and it puts body temperature at an awkward point roughly midway between the two, but not really half way either, making it completely intuitive. People who live under the tyranny of the metric system eventually develop a feel for the temperatures, but they do it in spite of the way the system is laid out, not because of it.

      People judge temperature relative to their own body temperature when they don't have a thermometer. And they decide whether or not they're comfortable relative to their body temperature. Fahrenheit is great because it's relatively straightforward to compare body temperature to the ambient air temperature.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 28 2017, @04:07AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 28 2017, @04:07AM (#545597)

        So in F you have to remember a number for body temperature and then compare that number to the air temperature.
        But in C you have to remember a number for body temperature and then compare that number to the air temperature.

        Is it really that much easier to remember 98.6 vs 37?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 28 2017, @04:15PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 28 2017, @04:15PM (#545828)

          Regardless of what system of measure you use, you always compare back to body temperature when estimating temperature without instruments. What Fahrenheit does that Celsius gets wrong, is it puts the reference point in a place that's convenient.

          This whole BS about having to remember things comes up with the metric system all the time and it's not really our fault in America that people in other parts of the world have such bad memory.

      • (Score: 2) by ledow on Friday July 28 2017, @03:22PM (1 child)

        by ledow (5567) on Friday July 28 2017, @03:22PM (#545797) Homepage

        Gosh, how useless in everyday life to know that things freeze at about 0.

        Rather than 32.

        How useless in everyday life to know your body temperature should be around 37.

        Rather than 99 (and that extra degree can make a big difference).

        All these numbers are arbitrary in everyday life. Your coffee is about 95C or 198F, neither make any more sense than the other.

        However, when you come to apply it, Fahrenheit has almost no use scientifically except with other units that are even more outdated, underused, and unfamiliar.

        In everyday life, they are the same. Hundreds of countries cope just fine knowing nothing more than C, and absolutely nothing about F.
        In scientific life, the decision is made. Use SI units if you publish.

        If you are going to use one exclusively for science and for everyday life, C wins. Hands down. The decision was already made by the world.

        Any sort of random justification like yours is highly dubious to say the least (I can't say I even understand it, or how it's an advantage, to be honest).

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 28 2017, @04:23PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 28 2017, @04:23PM (#545832)

          It's not random, I'm just not an ill-educated hick that believes things that I don't understand.

          Most of what you said in this post is complete crap. There's no need for most people to know the boiling and freezing points of water. Most people just put things in the freezer until they're frozen solid or in a kettle until they boil. The specific temperature doesn't much matter. Which is probably why so few people use a thermometer in those cases.

          They go through life using Celsius because they were brought up using it and after a great deal of effort figured out how to relate it to their body temperature. But, claiming that this popularity makes it a better measure is rather ridiculous and it just furthers the view that you're not well-educated. Most of those countries use the metric system because they're not significant enough to have other measures available in the things they buy.

          BTW, you might want to look up the word hypocrite in the dictionary, because my justifications are far less random and dubious than yours are. I've used both systems and quite frankly Celsius is a huge mess for anything outside of the sciences.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 27 2017, @09:50PM (19 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 27 2017, @09:50PM (#545467)

    I think Fahrenheit does a better job of capturing the current air temperatures in comfortable numbers for people.

    You're only saying that because you're familiar with the Fahrenheit scale. Celsius captures the current air temperature in comfortable numbers of people (what does that even mean?) quite nicely. If you tell me that it's 24 degrees, I know that it's comfortably warm; summertime would mean that a light breeze wouldn't be unwelcome, but if it's below -30 outside then 24 is very welcome. Tell me that it's 105 and I'd have no clue whether that means I'd be most comfortable wearing a tank-top, a T-shirt or a sweater.)

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 28 2017, @12:53AM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 28 2017, @12:53AM (#545549)

      Not really, Fahrenheit was originally designed with human body temperature on one end and frozen water ice on the other. Meaning that you've got one end of the scale positioned in a place that's easier for humans to judge. Literally any time we're judging temperature without an instrument we're comparing it to our body temperature.

      With Celsius, body temperature falls awkwardly in the middle of the end points they chose. So, you get the completely un-intuitive 37C as the reference point for those measurements. To make matters worse, those end points were arbitrarily defined in a way that makes no sense if we ever travel to other planets as they're only meaningful on the Earth or a planet with earth-like properties. Fahrenheit though is a human-centric measurement, so it's useful anywhere that humans go, but at a cost of being probably worthless when dealing with aliens if we ever meet any.

      The SI system is earth-centric and as a result tends to be great for science. The imperial system is human-centric and tends to be useful wherever humans are using the measures for themselves or judging without tools.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 28 2017, @04:16AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 28 2017, @04:16AM (#545602)

        So your arbitrary planet has humans, but no water? One end of your scale is still water based anyway so just as meaningless.
        You know F goes above 100? It's not an end.
        You're just used to F because it was indoctrinated into you. It's no more or less easy to judge against without tools than anything else you were brought up with.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 28 2017, @04:29PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 28 2017, @04:29PM (#545837)

          First off, by definition, anywhere we go is going to have humans.

          Secondly, Celsius isn't based on the temperature for freezing and boiling water. It's based upon the temperature of freezing and boiling water under specific conditions. A planet that doesn't have the same atmosphere and size isn't going to have the same freezing and boiling points. Even on Earth, if you're up on a tall mountain the difference between 100C and the temperature that things are actually boiling at can be off by several degrees.

          It's shocking to me how dead certain you guys are that the SI units are better for daily living and yet are so completely ignorant of how that system works let alone how the imperial measures work. Personally, I know how both systems work and I base my opinion on the fact that the SI units just don't work very well in real life without making a huge number of bastardizations.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 28 2017, @09:33AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 28 2017, @09:33AM (#545687)

        Riddle me this: Which is the system that clearly most people on earth can handle just fine in their every day life?
        That "human-centric" bullshit is just that, bullshit.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 28 2017, @04:31PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 28 2017, @04:31PM (#545839)

          Well, I'm convinced, a bunch of former colonies adopted the system used by their former colonizers, so clearly it's the better system.

          Well, not really. The pro-SI arguments are so stupid, that the people making them ought to be wearing some sort of helmet so they don't hurt themselves.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Friday July 28 2017, @01:01AM (11 children)

      by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Friday July 28 2017, @01:01AM (#545554)

      You're only saying that because you're familiar with the Fahrenheit scale...

      This is exactly correct.

      Hands up all the non-Americans arguing against Celsius.

      Thought so.

      Lets do the metric system next.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Mykl on Friday July 28 2017, @03:40AM (6 children)

        by Mykl (1112) on Friday July 28 2017, @03:40AM (#545587)

        No, the next item on the agenda should be why the US date format is mm/dd/yy rather than dd/mm/yy. This is a massive pain in the ass.

        • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 28 2017, @04:22AM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 28 2017, @04:22AM (#545606)

          Those both suck. It should be YYYY/MM/DD, so that dates are always sorted in the correct order.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 28 2017, @07:17AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 28 2017, @07:17AM (#545644)

            And "correct" in this sense means "not ambiguous".

          • (Score: 3, Informative) by unauthorized on Friday July 28 2017, @08:51AM

            by unauthorized (3776) on Friday July 28 2017, @08:51AM (#545668)

            Incorrect. Dates are human-readable representation of time, indented only for our monkey brains to grasp. dd/mm/yyyy is better for presenting data where many datapoints span the same year or predominantly recent events, where as yyyy/mm/dd is better at presenting data where the year is expected to change a lot (eg only a few datapoints per year, or frequently looking up old records).

            Sorting on the other hand is a job for computers who represent dates as naturally sortable timestamps.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 28 2017, @09:19AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 28 2017, @09:19AM (#545683)

          Well, it's topped by the standard time format used by date which puts the time and the time zone in between the day and the year: Fri Jul 28 11:17:35 CEST 2017

        • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 28 2017, @04:34PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 28 2017, @04:34PM (#545844)

          dd/mm/yyyy is the dumbest ordering possible in countries that read from left to right. The only time that it makes sense is if you're writing in a language that goes from right to left.

          How many times are you interested in all of the things that happened on the 3rd of every month of a year? I can't recall ever having wanted to know that. I do, however, regularly want to know what happened during a particularly month. Hence, mm/dd/yyyy. Arguably, yyyy/mm/dd is even better as we're usually not interested in what happened during any May, we're interested in one particular May, so moving the year ahead of the month would make a ton of sense.

          But, starting it with the day is for tossers, wankers and bollocks jugglers. It makes absolutely no sense other than as a masturbatory nod to the backwards minds in Europe.

          • (Score: 2) by Mykl on Monday July 31 2017, @04:25AM

            by Mykl (1112) on Monday July 31 2017, @04:25AM (#546973)

            By your own argument then, dd/mm/yyyy is superior. The emphasis for the date is in the first part, not the middle.

            For example, if you want to know about things that happened in March 2017:

            • On 3/3/17, I visited foo
            • On 15/3/17, I visited bar
            • On 22/3/17, foo and bar visited me

            Compare to your version:

            • On 3/3/17, I visited foo
            • On 3/15/17, I visited bar
            • On 3/22/17, foo and bar visited me

            In your version, you have to hunt for the most relevant part of the date in the middle of the date, rather than the end. Stoopid.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by TheRaven on Friday July 28 2017, @08:16AM (3 children)

        by TheRaven (270) on Friday July 28 2017, @08:16AM (#545658) Journal
        I had an American advance precisely the argument in TFA to me 15 years ago. There are a few problems with it:

        First, most of the time, the difference between one degree Fahrenheit is not detectable to a human. One degree centigrade is slightly less than the amount that you'll notice. 25 degrees is definitely warmer than 22 degrees, but 22-23 or 24-25 is not something that you'd notice. At around 20±5 degrees, the difference in perceived temperature due to differences in humidity is more than one degree. This means that, for air temperature in informal use, centigrade gives more precision than is required.

        The second is that humans live in places with temperature ranges from about -40 (in either system) up to a bit under 60ºC (140ºF). This means that Fahrenheit needs 3 significant figures to capture that range. If you use 3 significant figures for centigrade, then you're measuring tenths of a degree, which gives you about five times the precision. People may not be comfortable with fractions, but people use decimals all the time in countries that use metric units.

        --
        sudo mod me up
        • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 28 2017, @03:10PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 28 2017, @03:10PM (#545785)

          Speak for yourself. I'm a healthy male, age 57 who walks 1-2 miles daily in the south Texas afternoon heat, you know, for my health.

          When the home thermostat is set at 73 (F), I have trouble sleeping because it's too warm.
          When it's set to 71, I need a blanket, but then I get too warm and take it off, then I get cold and put it back on...
          When I set it to 70 or below (within reason) I sleep just fine under a light blanket.
          But the best is when set to 72 and I can comfortably sleep under a sheet, no blankets required.

          I would very much like to have a thermostat with a 0.5 degree F increment.

          My vote would be to use Celcius, BUT, renamed to be spell-able by the average 3rd grader (C-scale?) and, here's the important part, then tripled so that freezing (water) is at 0 deg. and boiling is at 300. This puts my target sleep zone at a nice round 67 (or 66.6... for you evil purists), and too hot to go outside will be at an alarming triple digit 100. (I have no trouble walking 2 miles in the 105 deg F. Texas heat, but then, I'm healthier than most people, my age or otherwise.)

          The tripled Celsius scale has all the advantages of both systems.

        • (Score: 2) by etherscythe on Friday July 28 2017, @07:21PM (1 child)

          by etherscythe (937) on Friday July 28 2017, @07:21PM (#545924) Journal

          Not all degrees are equal, even when using the same scale. 70 degrees with low humidity (say ~45%, considered close to ideal in most HVAC documentation I have read) is much more comfortable than 70 degrees with 75%+ humidity. At the latter level of saturation, individual degrees Fahrenheit do make a difference.

          My question is, do thermostats differ by percents of a degree in Celcius? If not, you definitely have an issue of practical precision, which seems to be the point of TFA: what good is a system you use improperly, or cannot use to best effect? I can get single-degree precision in Fahrenheit on my programmable unit right now, and it matters to me.

          --
          "Fake News: anything reported outside of my own personally chosen echo chamber"
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 28 2017, @08:58PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 28 2017, @08:58PM (#545971)

            Thermostats in Celsius usually allow you to set the temperature by half-degrees (so, 21º goes to 21.5º then 22º, etc). So basically the same precision as in F for all intents and purposes.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by KritonK on Friday July 28 2017, @09:40AM

      by KritonK (465) on Friday July 28 2017, @09:40AM (#545689)

      You're only saying that because you're familiar with the Fahrenheit scale.

      Indeed. I'm more familiar with Celsius, and I'm as comfortable with this scale as you describe. Having lived in the US for a few years, as well, I am also familiar with the Farenheit scale: if the temperature is in the sixties, it is cool; if it is in the seventies, it is comfortable; if it is in the eighties, it is hot. One might argue that the Farenheit scale is too precise, as knowing that the temperature is within a ten degree range is often sufficient. Similarly, if one needs more precision with the Celsius scale, one can always use decimals, but for ordinary use they are unnecessary. I've seen outdoor temperature displays giving the temperature with a 0.5 degree (Celsius) precision, and have never seen the point in that.

    • (Score: 2) by rondon on Friday July 28 2017, @12:20PM

      by rondon (5167) on Friday July 28 2017, @12:20PM (#545728)

      You didn't actually address anything in my argument. I believe people don't appreciate working in negative numbers, and that they like having the ends of the scale be approximately 0 and 100. You just said I believe that because I'm American. Well, I'm American and I vastly prefer the metric system for the exact same reason that I prefer Fahrenheit - 1, 10, 100 - easy units for people with 10 fingers to work in.

  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday July 28 2017, @02:45AM

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday July 28 2017, @02:45AM (#545578)

    If you grew up with a temperature scale like centigrade * 2, you might also be more comfortable with those numbers.

    I like 72 degrees F - that's 22.2 in C, but might be even better as 44.4 in 2C? or not, who knows.

    Water freezing would still be 0 in 2C, kinda useful that way - and 100F becomes 75.5 in 2C.

    So, I'd say in 2C, 40 is cool, 50 is getting warm, 70 is uncomfortably warm, and killer hot at 80, and by 100 you'll need desert survival gear.

    Or, if you really want to mess with people, make a CF scale where water freezes at 0 and boils at 212, Confusion Factor would be awesomely high.

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by aclarke on Friday July 28 2017, @03:54PM

    by aclarke (2049) on Friday July 28 2017, @03:54PM (#545818) Homepage

    I would imagine about 100% of the people who agree with you grew up with Fahrenheit, and 100% of the people who disagree with you grew up with Celsius. For example, I grew up with C, lived in the US for almost a decade, and still think F is stupid for measuring almost anything.

    Your statement makes sense to YOU, because you are used to Fahrenheit. That's fine, but this argument is a subjective one.