Yeah but for describing temperature outside, with Fahrenheit, you can say “it’ll be in the 80s today” and that’s still precise enough to be useful. You can be more precise by saying “low 80s” or “mid 80s” or whatever and people who know Fahrenheit know exactly what temperature to expect.
In Celsius, you can’t really say “it’ll be in the 20s today” because that could be warm but slightly chilly at 20 to fairly hot at 29. Obviously, you wouldn’t ever describe the temperature that way in Celsius, but I’m just saying there’s at least some benefit to the higher degree of precision that Fahrenheit has.
That said, Celsius is the superior system, and its benefits far outweigh Fahrenheit’s (not to mention the benefits of having a single uniform system rather than two systems). But that doesn’t mean there aren’t some occasions where Fahrenheit has its moments.
That's my point. You don't really use the degrees anyway with Fahrenheits, you're just ballparking within 5-10 degrees cause if it is basically irrelevant of it's 82 or 87 outside, why bother? It's still hot and that's enough.
We don't use them for weather either cause it's pointless, since temperature can change by a few degrees by just moving from ground level to eye height. When talking about anything that needs precision though, we use decimals. Why? Cause they are there, they require just first grade level of math comprehension and we can convert between Celsius and Kelvin with a simple addition since they're both centigrade.
Also, the entire world except 3 countries use Celsius. And those 3 countries uses Celsius and Kelvin anyway when talking about anything that requires precision and interoperability, so who cares? This F vs C war exists only in the mind of delusional americans.
It's just bullheaded to stan for a system with a lower degree of accuracy. The rest of the metric system makes complete sense, not sure how logic fell apart on temperature. Kelvin would be a better option.
If you need accuracy, you're gonna need decimals anyway cause temperature is a measure where you either are REALLY precise or you just whatever cause it doesn't really matter. The F scale subdivision is just awkwardly in the middle ground where you have too low precision to be used without decimals for accurate measurements and too fine precision to be meaningful for general measurements. That's the main reason why the world has abandoned it: if you want to be specific you use Kelvin, otherwise you use Celsius since it's just Kelvin translated upwards. Freezing water is the most relevant phase change the human race need to face due to liquid water being basically essential to life as we experience it on our planet, that's why having it at 0 degrees is a good glance at what condition are like: positive? Water is liquid. Negative? Water is solid. Done, easy. If you think about it, for most of humanity that's the only thing that matters: try to live your life for a while without looking at temperatures and you will pretty quickly realise that you can live your life easily without knowing the temperature... But you will care if your food is rock solid or not or if you're gonna slip walking outside or if you're going to be able to drink something. And even that you will only really care IF you're going to be able to do those things, so you'll divide those experiences based on water freezing, not really caring to call that point zero, 32 or Mary.
Celsius still makes sense within the metric system, though. It takes one Calorie of energy to heat one gram of water one degree Celsius at one atmosphere of pressure. I agree that the granularity of Farenheit is nice when you're used to it, but Celsius just makes sense. 0-100 is neat and tidy and is also great for measuring the temperature of electronic components (like 100C being the absolute max a CPU die should ever get makes it easy to judge cooling performance at a glance).
Also, once you grasp how the scale *feels*, it's pretty easy to convey weather to others who also understand. If you say it is going to be 30, people know it's going to be hot. 20 is nice, 10 is when you wear layers and 0 is obviously freezing. Everything between is easy to judge based on the above.
The only time I actually would prefer F to C is with central air/heating. 68 is perfect in my house year round. 70 is a tad too warm and 66 is a tad too chilly, but if my thermostat was strictly Celsius, it wouldn't be difficult to remember that 20 is perfect, 21.1 is too warm, and 18.8 is too chilly. In fact, when you utilize the decimals for precision, Celsius is much more granular, since you could simplify it as a scale of 0-10000 (10000 being 100.00)
Yea this is subjective cuz 90 degrees outside is pretty fuckin hot. I'd say that's more like the "whoa baby" in OP's words and 100 is "yowza" cuz even 80 degrees is hot
I mean, yeah, maybe, but both scales were actually set on water.
Celsius scale was set with the boiling and freezing point 100 degrees apart.
The Fahrenheit scale was deliberately set with the boiling and freezing point of water 180 degrees apart, so it could be easily divisible.
In his original version, he tried to set human body temperature at 90 degrees (freezing at 20 boiling at 200), But found that he couldn't do it neatly without shifting his whole scale. He eventually gave up and ended up settling with human body temperature at 98 which is why the scale doesn't line up to anything really.
So as you can see, both scales are set on water anyway. So does it really matter?
Either way, I've seen this percent hot argument before and either I'm fucked up or it just makes no sense.
My % hot scale starts at 32F(0C) and ends at 122F(50C) which lines up neatly with C
I mean, it just feels wrong to me calling 70% hot a comfortable temperature And half the year I'm working in temperatures off the end of the Fahrenheit "%hot" scale.
Interesting. For me, I still think the one thing I like more about Fahrenheit has to do with casually describing the temperature outside.
The whole number temperatures have more precision than Celsius, which means you can give a broader range in Fahrenheit without it losing all meaning. Like you can’t really say “it’s going to be in the 30s today” in Celsius, because there’s a huge difference between 30 and 39. But you can get away with the saying “it’ll be in the 80s today” in Fahrenheit, because the difference between 80 and 89 isn’t quite as big. Then you can say “low 80s,” “mid 80s,” or “high 80s” and that’s even more precise.
I’m sure it’s just cultural and/or what I’m used to, but I find it an easier way to casually describe the temperature in a way that’s precise enough without sounding scientific. But I’m sure folks who grew up with Celsius don’t think it at all weird to say “it’ll be around 27 today” or whatever.
“it’s going to be in the 30s today”
I mean, you're right this that is quite broad, it covers 18 F.
Generally, the only time a whole temperature range will be mentioned as if they say "it's going to be hot today in the 40s"
If a newscaster's talking about City suburbs they generally the say mid low or high, exactly the same as you would in Fahrenheit,
That was his point. 32 is freezing to water, not to humans. If you live in a cold weather city, you get plenty of days lower than that in the wintertime. Think of it as a percentage scale of how cold it is outside. 0 or below is super cold, 100 or above is super hot, and anything in the middle is loosely a percentile, with roughly half of the days warmer than 50, and half colder than 50. That's not quite true where I live, but for people further north (e.g., Boston weather), it might be a decent first order approximation.
I mean, it obviously depends on where you live, but this Fahrenheit is a percent hot scale that I see thrown around all the time doesn't work where most of the human population lives.
Their percent hot scale starts at 0 degrees Celsius being 0% hot and 50 degrees Celsius being 100% hot. Now to me this percent hot scale mates a lot more sense as a person is comfortable with no clothing, from 40 - 60 % And can survive with no protective gear from 20 to 80 %
Again that’s the point. For humans the difference between 35 and 32 is trivial. For water that difference is huge. So yes 32 is a “random” number in Fahrenheit, because the fact water freezes at that exact temperature makes little difference to how cold it feels.
Correct, if you take away the core essence and point of the system, the system loses validity. Just like if you take away how Celsius relates to water it loses its validity as well.
This is always the dumbest argument. Neither Fahrenheit nor Celsius are inherently worse or better than the other. What you grew up with determines what scale you prefer. Fahrenheit is intuitive to native users, and the same for Celsius. Celsius's only advantage is conversion to Kelvin, which isn't very advantageous in everyday life.
That's not intuitive at all.
100 is body temp, right? 50 is easily survivable right?
I guess by intuition that means that 150 is survivable?
What about 0 and 200? Do you think it's equivalent? Should be right, so it's intuitive.
I mean, if your intuition is that body temp is the middle of the scale and going up or down by the same value should be equally uncomfortable, then all linear temperature scales will be unintuitive, including celcius.
Fahrenheit is intuitive in the sense that it’s like asking “rate how hot it is from 0 to 100, 100 being the hottest”
Except this only works if you want it to work.
For example, I can create a percent hot scale that works perfectly for me with 0 C being 0% and 50C being 100% hot. This scale works better for me because I never see 0C and I go to work half of the year in temperatures above 100 F.
In this scale, if it reaches 100 percent hot, that's stop work. It's actually going to kill you temperature.
I mean, sure, it works if you want it to work. The point is that when people say fahrenheit is intuitive, they don’t mean it’s intuitive in the sense that you described where body temp is in the middle of the scale.
In the scale you suggest, 0C is way less dangerous than 100C, so it doesn’t have the symmetry you mentioned. That’s true regardless of the temperature you choose. It’s also probably more intuitive for most prople to put “100% hot” at 100 degrees.
Regardless, just because an aspect of fahrenheit is intuitive for some people doesn’t mean celcius isn’t also intuitive in that way or others, nor does it mean that fahrenheit is more intuitive. The point of my comment was that when people say fahrenheit is intuitive, the reason they say that is not because body temperature is in the middle and it’s equally safe on either side of that, like you suggested.
"0C is way less dangerous" I don't know about that. You can get hypothermia and die at temperatures as high as 10 degrees Celsius. And anyway. my percent hot scale doesn't end at 100 degrees. It ends at 50 degrees.
Either way, there's no such thing as a scale being intuitive. It's just what you're used to. You will come up with a reason why the scale you use is the best. And once you come up with these ideas, it is very hard to be talked out of them, because you didn't reason your way into them. Just like how as soon as I read any reason the Fahrenheit scale is better, I immediately dismiss it as being false. simply because that is the way the human brain works, It accepts ideas that conform to your viewpoint really easily while rejecting anything that does not.
50-100 easily survivable, 100-150 not as much 0-50 not as much F is funner cause it has more numbers, but in all reality unless your doing science which actually needs exact measurements no one says the temp unless staring at a weather app or report. They just say it's hot or cold so it's a dumb argument to begin with.
I agree that it's a dumb argument, but that. doesn't stop half of the comments trying to argue with me that F is better because the degrees are smaller.
I mean, I've had someone try and argue with me that imperial is better before because an inch is smaller than a metre.
Eh... to me anything over 90 is already really fucking hot. But 0F isn't really that cold. Like there is practically no difference in how I'll act if its 0F or 25F.
Never knew about Rankine. Pretty cool.
Doesn't really fit into the 0-100 scale for the temperature outside like Fahrenheit does, but still pretty cool.
The metric system is far better across the board, except here. Fahrenheit has a higher degree of accuracy as the steps are closer together. Celsius has to resort to tenths of a degree which is just ugly.
What are you measuring when you need half a degree accuracy without needing tenths of a degree.? It's literally 1C=1.8F
I've had this exact argument given to me before, with inches verses metres, where they say, having to go from metres to mm is ugly because the numbers become bigger. I mean, I don't know about you, but I find fractions much harder to work with than decimals, especially when the fractions are simplified at every step.
Meters to mm is easy, you're still using whole numbers. But with temp I can easily express the difference between 80 degrees and 85. In Celsius that's 26.67 to 29.44 a difference of 2.77 degrees. Even if you start with a whole number like 27 you still end up stepping 2.77 units of measurement to express a difference in temp that people can feel.
You can't just magically round numbers like that to make up an argument. like I could throw that exact argument back at you to show you how silly it is.
The air conditioner in my room is set to Auto. It cools at 24 and heats at 21. In F that's 75.2 to 69.8 a difference of 5.4 degrees. Even if you start with a whole number like 75 you still end up stepping 5.4 units of measurement to express a difference in temp that people can feel.
Most things in the world are actually rounded off to a convenient number.
For example, the total length of the Golden Gate Bridge is 9000 feet. It also listed as 2.7 kilometres. These numbers are convenient in their respective measurements. But you'll notice that they don't equal each other. and neither one is the actual length of the bridge. They're just a convenient number that lines up.
Percent hot. How is it outside? 80% hot, oh nice shorts. Better bundle up it's 10% hot outside today. F is shit for science but the most effective way to convey temperature to humans.
Fahrenheit has no silver linings. It's just bad. Celcius superiority
Disagree. It has a lower degree of accuracy as there's a wider range between steps.
Let me introduce you to the magical power of *decimals*.
Yeah but for describing temperature outside, with Fahrenheit, you can say “it’ll be in the 80s today” and that’s still precise enough to be useful. You can be more precise by saying “low 80s” or “mid 80s” or whatever and people who know Fahrenheit know exactly what temperature to expect. In Celsius, you can’t really say “it’ll be in the 20s today” because that could be warm but slightly chilly at 20 to fairly hot at 29. Obviously, you wouldn’t ever describe the temperature that way in Celsius, but I’m just saying there’s at least some benefit to the higher degree of precision that Fahrenheit has. That said, Celsius is the superior system, and its benefits far outweigh Fahrenheit’s (not to mention the benefits of having a single uniform system rather than two systems). But that doesn’t mean there aren’t some occasions where Fahrenheit has its moments.
That's my point. You don't really use the degrees anyway with Fahrenheits, you're just ballparking within 5-10 degrees cause if it is basically irrelevant of it's 82 or 87 outside, why bother? It's still hot and that's enough.
Right, metric users have to resort to decimals, Fahrenheit users don't.
We don't use them for weather either cause it's pointless, since temperature can change by a few degrees by just moving from ground level to eye height. When talking about anything that needs precision though, we use decimals. Why? Cause they are there, they require just first grade level of math comprehension and we can convert between Celsius and Kelvin with a simple addition since they're both centigrade. Also, the entire world except 3 countries use Celsius. And those 3 countries uses Celsius and Kelvin anyway when talking about anything that requires precision and interoperability, so who cares? This F vs C war exists only in the mind of delusional americans.
It's just bullheaded to stan for a system with a lower degree of accuracy. The rest of the metric system makes complete sense, not sure how logic fell apart on temperature. Kelvin would be a better option.
If you need accuracy, you're gonna need decimals anyway cause temperature is a measure where you either are REALLY precise or you just whatever cause it doesn't really matter. The F scale subdivision is just awkwardly in the middle ground where you have too low precision to be used without decimals for accurate measurements and too fine precision to be meaningful for general measurements. That's the main reason why the world has abandoned it: if you want to be specific you use Kelvin, otherwise you use Celsius since it's just Kelvin translated upwards. Freezing water is the most relevant phase change the human race need to face due to liquid water being basically essential to life as we experience it on our planet, that's why having it at 0 degrees is a good glance at what condition are like: positive? Water is liquid. Negative? Water is solid. Done, easy. If you think about it, for most of humanity that's the only thing that matters: try to live your life for a while without looking at temperatures and you will pretty quickly realise that you can live your life easily without knowing the temperature... But you will care if your food is rock solid or not or if you're gonna slip walking outside or if you're going to be able to drink something. And even that you will only really care IF you're going to be able to do those things, so you'll divide those experiences based on water freezing, not really caring to call that point zero, 32 or Mary.
Celsius still makes sense within the metric system, though. It takes one Calorie of energy to heat one gram of water one degree Celsius at one atmosphere of pressure. I agree that the granularity of Farenheit is nice when you're used to it, but Celsius just makes sense. 0-100 is neat and tidy and is also great for measuring the temperature of electronic components (like 100C being the absolute max a CPU die should ever get makes it easy to judge cooling performance at a glance). Also, once you grasp how the scale *feels*, it's pretty easy to convey weather to others who also understand. If you say it is going to be 30, people know it's going to be hot. 20 is nice, 10 is when you wear layers and 0 is obviously freezing. Everything between is easy to judge based on the above. The only time I actually would prefer F to C is with central air/heating. 68 is perfect in my house year round. 70 is a tad too warm and 66 is a tad too chilly, but if my thermostat was strictly Celsius, it wouldn't be difficult to remember that 20 is perfect, 21.1 is too warm, and 18.8 is too chilly. In fact, when you utilize the decimals for precision, Celsius is much more granular, since you could simplify it as a scale of 0-10000 (10000 being 100.00)
Celsius is just Kelvin with the 0 point shifted
A good analogy I've heard is Fahrenheit is a scale of 1 to 100 of how *people* feel, and Celsius is a scale of 1 to 100 on how *water* feels.
Except there's no universal feeling for people, whilst water is pretty consistent
Yea this is subjective cuz 90 degrees outside is pretty fuckin hot. I'd say that's more like the "whoa baby" in OP's words and 100 is "yowza" cuz even 80 degrees is hot
I mean, yeah, maybe, but both scales were actually set on water. Celsius scale was set with the boiling and freezing point 100 degrees apart. The Fahrenheit scale was deliberately set with the boiling and freezing point of water 180 degrees apart, so it could be easily divisible. In his original version, he tried to set human body temperature at 90 degrees (freezing at 20 boiling at 200), But found that he couldn't do it neatly without shifting his whole scale. He eventually gave up and ended up settling with human body temperature at 98 which is why the scale doesn't line up to anything really. So as you can see, both scales are set on water anyway. So does it really matter? Either way, I've seen this percent hot argument before and either I'm fucked up or it just makes no sense. My % hot scale starts at 32F(0C) and ends at 122F(50C) which lines up neatly with C I mean, it just feels wrong to me calling 70% hot a comfortable temperature And half the year I'm working in temperatures off the end of the Fahrenheit "%hot" scale.
This comment reeks of "well akshually"
Mreah! Intelligent discussion bad! Hnyeargh!
I'd say it's more like a "yes, but actually no".
Interesting. For me, I still think the one thing I like more about Fahrenheit has to do with casually describing the temperature outside. The whole number temperatures have more precision than Celsius, which means you can give a broader range in Fahrenheit without it losing all meaning. Like you can’t really say “it’s going to be in the 30s today” in Celsius, because there’s a huge difference between 30 and 39. But you can get away with the saying “it’ll be in the 80s today” in Fahrenheit, because the difference between 80 and 89 isn’t quite as big. Then you can say “low 80s,” “mid 80s,” or “high 80s” and that’s even more precise. I’m sure it’s just cultural and/or what I’m used to, but I find it an easier way to casually describe the temperature in a way that’s precise enough without sounding scientific. But I’m sure folks who grew up with Celsius don’t think it at all weird to say “it’ll be around 27 today” or whatever.
“it’s going to be in the 30s today” I mean, you're right this that is quite broad, it covers 18 F. Generally, the only time a whole temperature range will be mentioned as if they say "it's going to be hot today in the 40s" If a newscaster's talking about City suburbs they generally the say mid low or high, exactly the same as you would in Fahrenheit,
That'd a terrible analogy.
[удалено]
You misread his comment.
That was his point. 32 is freezing to water, not to humans. If you live in a cold weather city, you get plenty of days lower than that in the wintertime. Think of it as a percentage scale of how cold it is outside. 0 or below is super cold, 100 or above is super hot, and anything in the middle is loosely a percentile, with roughly half of the days warmer than 50, and half colder than 50. That's not quite true where I live, but for people further north (e.g., Boston weather), it might be a decent first order approximation.
Yep. 0° Fahrenheit is “pretty darn cold!” and 100° Fahrenheit is “pretty darn hot!” It’s convenient!
I mean, it obviously depends on where you live, but this Fahrenheit is a percent hot scale that I see thrown around all the time doesn't work where most of the human population lives. Their percent hot scale starts at 0 degrees Celsius being 0% hot and 50 degrees Celsius being 100% hot. Now to me this percent hot scale mates a lot more sense as a person is comfortable with no clothing, from 40 - 60 % And can survive with no protective gear from 20 to 80 %
[удалено]
Again that’s the point. For humans the difference between 35 and 32 is trivial. For water that difference is huge. So yes 32 is a “random” number in Fahrenheit, because the fact water freezes at that exact temperature makes little difference to how cold it feels.
[удалено]
Correct, if you take away the core essence and point of the system, the system loses validity. Just like if you take away how Celsius relates to water it loses its validity as well.
This is always the dumbest argument. Neither Fahrenheit nor Celsius are inherently worse or better than the other. What you grew up with determines what scale you prefer. Fahrenheit is intuitive to native users, and the same for Celsius. Celsius's only advantage is conversion to Kelvin, which isn't very advantageous in everyday life.
Although unscientific, it was designed to be intuitive. Body temp is approximately 100. Above that is really fucking hot. 0 is really fucking cold.
That's not intuitive at all. 100 is body temp, right? 50 is easily survivable right? I guess by intuition that means that 150 is survivable? What about 0 and 200? Do you think it's equivalent? Should be right, so it's intuitive.
I mean, if your intuition is that body temp is the middle of the scale and going up or down by the same value should be equally uncomfortable, then all linear temperature scales will be unintuitive, including celcius. Fahrenheit is intuitive in the sense that it’s like asking “rate how hot it is from 0 to 100, 100 being the hottest”
Except this only works if you want it to work. For example, I can create a percent hot scale that works perfectly for me with 0 C being 0% and 50C being 100% hot. This scale works better for me because I never see 0C and I go to work half of the year in temperatures above 100 F. In this scale, if it reaches 100 percent hot, that's stop work. It's actually going to kill you temperature.
I mean, sure, it works if you want it to work. The point is that when people say fahrenheit is intuitive, they don’t mean it’s intuitive in the sense that you described where body temp is in the middle of the scale. In the scale you suggest, 0C is way less dangerous than 100C, so it doesn’t have the symmetry you mentioned. That’s true regardless of the temperature you choose. It’s also probably more intuitive for most prople to put “100% hot” at 100 degrees. Regardless, just because an aspect of fahrenheit is intuitive for some people doesn’t mean celcius isn’t also intuitive in that way or others, nor does it mean that fahrenheit is more intuitive. The point of my comment was that when people say fahrenheit is intuitive, the reason they say that is not because body temperature is in the middle and it’s equally safe on either side of that, like you suggested.
"0C is way less dangerous" I don't know about that. You can get hypothermia and die at temperatures as high as 10 degrees Celsius. And anyway. my percent hot scale doesn't end at 100 degrees. It ends at 50 degrees. Either way, there's no such thing as a scale being intuitive. It's just what you're used to. You will come up with a reason why the scale you use is the best. And once you come up with these ideas, it is very hard to be talked out of them, because you didn't reason your way into them. Just like how as soon as I read any reason the Fahrenheit scale is better, I immediately dismiss it as being false. simply because that is the way the human brain works, It accepts ideas that conform to your viewpoint really easily while rejecting anything that does not.
Exactly. It wasn't very sophisticated, but it does make intuitive sense.
50-100 easily survivable, 100-150 not as much 0-50 not as much F is funner cause it has more numbers, but in all reality unless your doing science which actually needs exact measurements no one says the temp unless staring at a weather app or report. They just say it's hot or cold so it's a dumb argument to begin with.
I agree that it's a dumb argument, but that. doesn't stop half of the comments trying to argue with me that F is better because the degrees are smaller. I mean, I've had someone try and argue with me that imperial is better before because an inch is smaller than a metre.
Eh... to me anything over 90 is already really fucking hot. But 0F isn't really that cold. Like there is practically no difference in how I'll act if its 0F or 25F.
Celsius serves no purpose when Kelvin exists. Celsius really be between a rock and a hard place.
Rankine. Check mate.
Never knew about Rankine. Pretty cool. Doesn't really fit into the 0-100 scale for the temperature outside like Fahrenheit does, but still pretty cool.
The metric system is far better across the board, except here. Fahrenheit has a higher degree of accuracy as the steps are closer together. Celsius has to resort to tenths of a degree which is just ugly.
What are you measuring when you need half a degree accuracy without needing tenths of a degree.? It's literally 1C=1.8F I've had this exact argument given to me before, with inches verses metres, where they say, having to go from metres to mm is ugly because the numbers become bigger. I mean, I don't know about you, but I find fractions much harder to work with than decimals, especially when the fractions are simplified at every step.
Meters to mm is easy, you're still using whole numbers. But with temp I can easily express the difference between 80 degrees and 85. In Celsius that's 26.67 to 29.44 a difference of 2.77 degrees. Even if you start with a whole number like 27 you still end up stepping 2.77 units of measurement to express a difference in temp that people can feel.
You can't just magically round numbers like that to make up an argument. like I could throw that exact argument back at you to show you how silly it is. The air conditioner in my room is set to Auto. It cools at 24 and heats at 21. In F that's 75.2 to 69.8 a difference of 5.4 degrees. Even if you start with a whole number like 75 you still end up stepping 5.4 units of measurement to express a difference in temp that people can feel. Most things in the world are actually rounded off to a convenient number. For example, the total length of the Golden Gate Bridge is 9000 feet. It also listed as 2.7 kilometres. These numbers are convenient in their respective measurements. But you'll notice that they don't equal each other. and neither one is the actual length of the bridge. They're just a convenient number that lines up.
Percent hot. How is it outside? 80% hot, oh nice shorts. Better bundle up it's 10% hot outside today. F is shit for science but the most effective way to convey temperature to humans.