• Glide@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    253
    ·
    7 months ago

    This is actually a super fascinating example of the way data can be displayed in a technically correct way to lead the viewer to completely invalid conclusions.

    • alekks09@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      7 months ago

      It’s even more fascinating how everyone is seriously debating over this meme

  • Darrell_Winfield@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    154
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Ackchyually

    Fever is not 100F. A fever is defined as 100.4F. Why 100.4 when 100 is a much easier to remember and handle number? Because fever is defined in humans as 38C, and that converts to 100.4F.

    • BeardedSingleMalt@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      7 months ago

      It’s been a while but I think they tried to establish 100F as the average human body temperature. But after they established that baseline turns out they were off by 1.4 degrees and couldn’t change it.

      • gentooer@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        People’s body temperature used to be higher a century ago, but I think it was less then 1°C.

        EDIT: Apparently since the early 1800s, men’s body temperature changed about 0.59°C and women’s about 0.32°C.

      • Daft_ish@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        44
        ·
        7 months ago

        You’re right. April 8th 2000 Christopher Walken caught a fever that changed the course of history forever. He had a fever and the only cure was more cow bell.

    • Ultraviolet@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      7 months ago

      That’s a sigfig error. A fever is 38C, which is 2 significant digits. Converting to 100° F goes up an order of magnitude so you get a free sigfig, but unless the original number was 38.0C, you don’t get that 0.4, you’re implying precision that the original measurement never gave you.

        • Ultraviolet@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          But the fever definition wasn’t that precise. They took the average temperature, 36.88 C, rounded it up to 37 C, and somewhat arbitrarily defined a fever as 1 C above the (rounded) average. Which is perfectly fine, but it means the equivalent in Fahrenheit is 100, not 100.4.

    • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      A fever is defined as 100.4F

      Who defines it like that? I’m asking because I wouldn’t be surprised if the definition differs between orgs

  • DarkMessiah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    111
    ·
    7 months ago

    “Inches in 8.33 feet”

    “Mm in a foot”

    Fool, the scientist in me is infuriated. Good work, mate!

  • merc@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    69
    ·
    7 months ago

    Saturday Night Live actually had a good sketch about this a few weeks ago:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYqfVE-fykk

    Washington: "We fight for a nation where we choose our own laws… choose our own leaders… and choose our own systems of weights and measures.

    I dream that one day, our proud nation will measure weights in pounds, and that 2000 pounds shall be called a ton."

    Rebel: “And what will 1000 pounds be called sir?”

    Washington: “Nothing. Cause will have no word for that.”

    Washington: “Distance will be measured in inches, feet, yards and miles. 12 inches to a foot!”

    Rebel: “12 feet to a yard…”

    Washington: “If only it were so simple. 3 feet to a yard.”

    Rebel: “And how many yards to a mile?”

    Washington: “Nobody knows.”

    Rebel: “Ok, how many feet to a mile?”

    Washington: “5280, of course! It’s a simple number that everyone will remember.”

  • naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    58
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    wait 100 F is only 38 degrees?

    Wow that’s funny. I’ve seen so many people complain about extreme heat below 100 F.

    I get that what you’re not used to is difficult but like 38 degrees is a relatively ordinary (now) summer day for me.

    From how people spoke about it I thought 100 F was more lile 45

    • dukepontus@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      43
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      I think that if the air is moist enough 38 degrees will overheat the body and kill it. Because the human body sweats to lose heat.

      So some regions on earth are probably less pleasant when the temperature rises. While other regions are more tolarable for humans.

      So there might be a reason why some people complain that they suffer from the heat. There could also be other reasons like their living conditions. A lack of ac and water, or living in a urban heat hell.

      Lets not trivialize experiences of people who suffer.

      • naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        7 months ago

        Oh yeah they open up libraries near me cause otherwise people might cark it.

        I’m not trivialising anything, but outside of the tropics you don’t need AC to survive those temps. Just keep wetting yourself down and stay out of the sun and you’ll be right. Unless you’re not in a good state prior.

        • bouh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          7 months ago

          That’s why we’re starting to use wet bulb temperature to measure these things. This is the temperature measured with the measuring bulb of the thermometer wet, so it accounts for wind and humidity, and it reflects how humans would feel and survive.

          38°C wet bulb is a deadly temperature. Not like you may die if you are unlucky or have specific condition, but like healthy you adult humans die in this weather. Because wind and humidity are such that your body cannot cool itself.

          In more temperate or dry places the heat should not be an underestimated danger either. But indeed the danger comes more at 40°C and higher and specific circumstances (stupidity being one of them).

          • naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            7 months ago

            you could still survive by immersing yourself in cool water but yeah.

            I think we had a 48 the other year with like 70% humidity and that was interesting. At one point I tried to get something done in the sun and almost immediately started experiencing heat stroke. I ended up going into the bush and lying down in a creek for a while. A surprising number of people had the same idea, it was almost nice except for the whole “wow the Apocalypse is starting” thing.

            • bouh@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              7 months ago

              You can survive with many external means. But that’s the thing: you need external means to survive because you cannot survive otherwise in this environment.

              And yes, even in dry weather doing work in direct sun when temperature is over 40C is madness. Even a healthy adult can die in this environment. You should at the very least have proper garments and drink a lot.

        • Thrashy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 months ago

          Keep in mind that a large chunk of the United States is considerably closer to the tropics than Europe is. Washington TC is on roughly the same latitude as Lisbon or Ibiza is. It’s not tropical, but climatically it’s still considered sub-tropical, and large chunks of the country have the summer heat and humidity to prove it.

          • naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            7 months ago

            I’m not from Europe. I’m from Australia.

            ATM I live in temperate rainforest, have spent time in tropical heat up in northern QL.

            Until the air gets saturated a lot of ability to cope is a combo of adaptation and conditioning. I wear jeans all year round pretty much and generally don’t run into problems as long as I’m drinking water. People less use to heat don’t move as much blood to their perpheries, probably don’t drink anywhere near enough water, and aren’t used to feeling comfortable in wet clothing (from sweat or from wetting yourself down).

            I spent some time in Thailand and felt like I had found my people when it was a 30 degree day and I put on a jumper, went outside and saw many others doing the same!

          • Wugmeister@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            Actually Europe’s weather is pretty analogous to the Midwest, thanks to an ocean current dumping lots of warm water to their north. Although that might be changing soon idk

      • Ashen44@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 months ago

        I live in a place that has -40°C winters and +40°C summers now 👍

        God I sure do love global warming

      • TheFriendlyArtificer@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Montana, here.

        Nothing quite like when it hits -45°F and you have to start closing off rooms and stuffing blankets into registers and doorway cracks.

        Any kind of outdoor airflow can burn so bad that skin necrosis can begin in just 5 minutes.

        Summer in Arizona is shitty. Winter in the Northern Rockies will straight up murder you.

        • Droechai@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 months ago

          You shouldnt let the house go below 14-isch degrees since that would create kondensation that might hurt the structure or promote fungal growth. My house is between 15 to 20 degrees in winter and at 15 I can feel my body stiffen due to cold

          • naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            7 months ago

            If I had a choice mate I wouldn’t let it haha. I live in Australia, we make houses that don’t qualify as tents in the rest of the world.

            No real insulation (tiny amount in roof but downlights punch a hole through it), single glazed windows, doors that don’t seal. Power costs too much to run heating :') it’s good shit.

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                7 months ago

                When I moved to Los Angeles, I opened a bank account and while chatting with the bank employee, I found out she’d never seen snow up close. She’d only ever seen it on the mountains in the distance. That boggled my mind.

              • naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                I have had friends from colder places come stay and say they’ve never felt as bitterly cold as winter in Sydney.

                When I spent some time in the snowfields in aus I was actually warm. Turns out if you build houses properly you don’t even really need much heating. Residual heat from cooking and body heat hangs around for a long time, we’d only light the fire mornings and evenings.

    • gmtom@lemmy.world
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      7 months ago

      Ah yes the obligatory smug comment whenever anyone brings up temperature even tangentially.

      • naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 months ago

        Oh relax, it’s just funny. You’re welcome to have a giggle when I bitch about it being 18 and you’re like 18? that’s 64! I only heat my sauna to 66!

    • RobotsLeftHand@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      7 months ago

      100F in Houston is a completely different beast than 100F in San Diego. Shade will actually help you San Diego. Nothing will help you in Houston.

    • bermuda@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      It really depends on humidity. Humid heat is typically worse and can be really draining both mentally and physically. Dry heat is much more tolerable for humans. As a person who’s experienced both I can concur, the 100F humid heat was borderline horrific.

      38C/100F is probably fine (relatively) in Arizona but in Florida it’ll be pretty terrible. Like when I was in the south for a week it was 98F and the walls were sweating.

  • Wugmeister@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    I think the two points missing from most debates are

    1. The imperial system does a damn good job at measuring things the way a human would. A foot is roughly the length of a big foot. A single degree farenheit is just big enough that you could guesstimate it with enough practice. If the temperatures are negative, you dump sand on the roads instead of salt.

    2. It’s like seven units of measurement in a trenchant. You never have to convert gallons to cubic miles. You never have to convert from dots to angstoms, and nobody has ever had to convert the surveyors mile to the nautical mile. It feels schizophrenic because claiming it’s one singular system is like saying Italian, French, and Portuguese languages are all regional dialects of Europeanese.

    My point isn’t “it’s not a bug, it’s a feature”, I’m saying for the average non-scientist there may be a logical reason why we like it so much

      • turmacar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        No no. The rest of the world is constantly out of sorts on what common measurements are. It’s like how monolingual non-English-speaking people are constantly aware they’re not speaking the natural language of English.

        /s

      • 4lan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Lol is it?

        Think of all the different numbers you have to divide different units in our system by to convert.

        numbers are base 10 for every single society on earth. Metric units always scale by 10. It’s literally perfect for how we interpret numbers

  • thorbot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    7 months ago

    Another fucking imperial versus metric meme, never seen this before. Most of us use metric already, shut the fuck up

    • Zetta@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      7 months ago

      I switched to metric for all my personal projects right around the time I started doing any sort of project that had a form of measuring. Metric is better full stop

    • 4lan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      As an American I approve this comment.

      I’ve been into 3D printing for a few years and it has forced me into metric. Now my brain works in millimeters and it’s way better

      Our countries insistence on using imperial is evidence of our resistance to change. Even the creators of the system have abandoned it

  • Fal@yiffit.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    7 months ago

    The temperature measurement is true though. F describes the temperature scale that humans interact with much better than C does.

    • Slowy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      42
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Kind of, but not really. 0F doesn’t mean anything special in relation to human interaction, it relates to the freezing point of some random salt and water mixture (not seawater). 32 is a random number for the freezing point of freshwater which humans do care about, and 212 is nonsense for boiling temp of water which humans also care about and routinely use. The only part pertinent is that 100 is close to, but higher than human body temperature, but not quite where it counts as a fever… just the temperature of a sub-feverish human… how is that helpful! Sorry I really don’t care for the Fahrenheit system and I’m prepared to die on this hill

      • MidRomney@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        7 months ago

        0 F is really cold to a human (but still livable), and 100 F is really hot to a human (but still livable). I honestly don’t really care what temperature water boils at in my every day life. I know that if I put fire under a pot of water, it will boil eventually. Why would I need to know the exact temperature?

          • DeepFriedDresden@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            Do you add pasta when the water is boiling or do you add pasta when it’s 100°C? Because right now the boilng point of water for my location is 95.23°C. If I were to go skiing and wanted to boil some instant Ramen does it matter that the boiling point is 90.04°C in Leadville, CO? Or do I just put some water on the stove and wait till it boils?

            • SnipingNinja@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              7 months ago

              Coffee brewing, if I used boiling water my coffee would taste “burnt”, but if I use 80°C or so of hot water, it tastes perfect.

              • Sagifurius@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                7 months ago

                huh. I use an expensive coffee maker precisely because it heats just shy of boiling, 202 degrees/like 94c, and it turns out way better coffee than the 85 ish degree machines.

                • SnipingNinja@slrpnk.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  Depends on your coffee, brewing method, etc

                  For coffee machines the temperature doesn’t matter as much, but for pour over, and some other filter coffee methods it can be important to measure water temperature.

          • Fal@yiffit.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            7 months ago

            Explain how it’s useful in cooking. Considering it doesn’t actually boil at 100 degrees unless there’s very specific environmental conditions

        • Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          7 months ago

          Hard disagree. 0°F is colder than the pont it stopped being cool, but not yet really cold. 100°F is many degrees into dying of melting, but also a few degrees short of a fever worth noting.

          I don’t think I’ve ever seen either 0°F or 100°F used in any way to refer to actually temperature. It’s always defining the scale or comparing to °C. Maybe once when checking for a fever.

          • Fal@yiffit.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            7 months ago

            I don’t think I’ve ever seen either 0°F or 100°F used in any way to refer to actually temperature. It’s always defining the scale or comparing to °C. Maybe once when checking for a fever.

            What? Are you actually from somewhere that uses F? Because what kind of argument is this? You’re saying that 0F isn’t “really cold”? That’s a very specific take likely based on the very specific region you live in. The vast majority of the world would call 0F “really cold”.

            And likewise, as someone from arizona, 100F is hot but not “really hot”. That doesn’t start until after 110 or 115. So in general, out of the entire world, 0-100 is a pretty good range of “really cold” to “really hot”. Only the people who live in the specific places that regularly get much colder or hotter actually care. To most people, it doesn’t really matter if it’s 0 or -10 or -15, it’s all too fucking cold. Just like to you 100 or 110 or 115 doesn’t matter, it’s all too hot.

            • Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              7 months ago

              The limits of “hot” and “cold” change with location and personal experience. 0°F is shorts weather for some, while 70°F is jacket time for others. Both live in my neighborhood.

              There are hundreds of millions of people who see negative double digits every year, and billions of people who have never seen snow (Mumbai has never seen below 50°F!). There is no scale that can claim to cover human’s experience of temperature in general, but some scales can be useful.

              The exact numbers don’t matter to people anyway, no one sees 70°F and estimates 70% hot, just like most of the world knows what 22°C means, even if it never freezes there. We could measure in yoctojoules (40.7) or simply relative to what the pope feels is hot and cold (85?). For daily use all temperature scales are arbitrary. Why not use one that’s useful?

              • Fal@yiffit.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                0°F is shorts weather for some

                Only for those with medical issues or those being obstinate. It’s not a relevant data point when trying to agree on a scale. 99.9% of people will agree 0F = cold as fuck.

                There are hundreds of millions of people who see negative double digits every year

                So? The difference between 0F and -10F and -25F aren’t THAT significant. The VAST majority of people will treat those temperatures as similar unless they’re preparing for an outdoor adventure or something. But the difference between 65 and 75 is HUGE to most people that WILL impact how they prepare for interacting with the environment.

                For daily use all temperature scales are arbitrary. Why not use one that’s useful?

                This is just not accurate and is pure cope. A scale that’s 0-100 for the most important temperatures that humans interact with is an objectively good scale. With 10 degree bands that align pretty well to general human comfort and indicate the type of preparation required. Sure, some people might consider 60s t-shirt weather, but the point is the band is still relevant. 60-70, 70-80, 80-90. Those are useful, meaningful temperature ranges where the temperature inside those bands is similar enough

        • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          0 F is really cold to a human (but still livable), and 100 F is really hot to a human (but still livable)

          Oh wow two numbers with a really fuzzy meaning, how convenient

          I honestly don’t really care what temperature water boils at in my every day life

          How about freezing? Super useful info in places that have snow and ice

      • Fal@yiffit.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        32 is a random number for the freezing point of freshwater which humans do care about, and 212 is nonsense for boiling temp of water which humans also care about and routinely use.

        Humans care about the fact that water boils or freezes. Not the temperature at which it happens

        Sorry I really don’t care for the Fahrenheit system and I’m prepared to die on this hill

        I’m prepared to die on the Farenheit system is better for describing environmental temperature hill

        • SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          22
          ·
          7 months ago

          Friend, what in Sam Hill are you on about? Celsius is obviously better for boiling water: It takes a lot more degrees to reach 212 than it does 100, so I get my ramen a lot sooner when boiling water in Celsius!

          since text loses the emotional content of speech

          this is a joke

        • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          Humans care about the fact that water boils or freezes. Not the temperature at which it happens

          What? Humans care a whole lot about the temperature at which both those things happen.

          When I go outside in the morning, I know if road conditions are dangerous based on the freezing point of temperature.

          When I cook something, the boiling point of water is something I can easily recognise just by looking, which allows me to use temperatures around and below it for many purposes.

          • Fal@yiffit.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            What? Humans care a whole lot about the temperature at which both those things happen.

            Explain how

            When I go outside in the morning, I know if road conditions are dangerous based on the freezing point of temperature.

            You’re getting a false sense of security. Do you think -1C = dangerous and 1C = safe or something?

            When I cook something, the boiling point of water is something I can easily recognise just by looking, which allows me to use temperatures around and below it for many purposes.

            Wtf? Explain how

            • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              Explain how

              You mean the way I did in the parts you quoted after writing this?

              You’re getting a false sense of security. Do you think -1C = dangerous and 1C = safe or something?

              No? Did I write that? I know the freezing point of water, so I know when I have to be careful. That’s not strictly at the freezing point of water, but it is around that.

              Wtf? Explain how

              You should try to write actual questions, because I’m not sure what you’re confused about. Say I want to water around 80-90°C - I heat water to boiling and then wait a bit. What’s so difficult?

      • Sagifurius@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        212 and 100 are both equally random numbers. There’s nothing special about either. Besides, water boils about 205/95 on my hill.

        • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 months ago

          No, 212 and 100 are not equally random. Unless you’re trying to say that literally all numbers are equally random, 100 in the decimal system is much less random that 212.

          • Sagifurius@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            7 months ago

            Assigning the number 100 to the temperature pure water boils at sea level under specific conditions is as random as it gets. At least Farenheit numbers were based on a chemical concoction that exhibits the same temperature output regardless of elevation or pressure that they used to calibrate.

            • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              Assigning the number 100 to the temperature pure water boils at sea level under specific conditions is as random as it gets.

              No, it’s literally not. 212 is much more random. Any number like 10, 100, 1000 etc. is less random than any other number, simply by virtue of our decimal system. Just like 2,4, 8 etc. are less random in a binary system.

              • Sagifurius@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                7 months ago

                This isn’t kilometers, area, volume, distant measurement. It’s temperature. What that 100 is based on is random as fuck, and having the temperature of one elements boiling point at sea level divisible by 10 doesn’t really help anything. There is a 100 degree point in Farenhenheit too, you could simply use that for…well whatever reason you need ten to go in evenly.

                • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  My guy, I’m not arguing whether the boiling temperature of water is a random point (because it isn’t random in any way, and I’m not interested in arguing that). I’m arguing one simple thing: assigning something on a scale to 100 is much less random than assigning it to 212.

    • This is fine🔥🐶☕🔥@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      7 months ago

      F describes the temperature scale that humans interact with much better than C does.

      Only because you grew up with it.

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

      • Fal@yiffit.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        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.

            • TheKingBombOmbKiller@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              7 months ago

              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?

              • Fal@yiffit.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                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

                • TheKingBombOmbKiller@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months 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?

        • BluesF@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          7 months ago

          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.

          • Fal@yiffit.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months 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

        • This is fine🔥🐶☕🔥@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          7 months ago

          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.

            • ThisOne@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              7 months ago

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

              • Fal@yiffit.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                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.

          • Fal@yiffit.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months 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

    • edric@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      The fever temperature, maybe. But the rest makes more sense in C. It’s so much easier when 0C is freezing and 100C is boiling. It works with cooking. Counting in increments of 5 or 10 also works for weather.

      <0C = below freezing

      0-10C = cold

      10-20C = cool (sweater or hoodie)

      20-30C = t-shirt weather

      30C and above = hot

      • Fal@yiffit.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        7 months ago

        It’s so much easier when 0C is freezing and 100C is boiling. It works with cooking.

        Explain how this is useful in cooking

        20-30C = t-shirt weather

        68 to 86 is a GIGANTIC difference. 68 is cold for many many people, certainly not “t-shirt weather”. and 86 is hot, much more than “t-shirt weather”.

        • BiggestBulb@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          7 months ago

          Who bundles up in 68F? It’s literally room temperature

          Also it’s useful in cooking because it’s an actual, useful scale. You know when it’s 90C it’s about to be boiling, just makes no sense why you gotta memorize 212F. Random number and all

          • Fal@yiffit.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            7 months ago

            Never said “bundling up”. But that 10 degree range is so big as to be useless. 68 is not in the same category as 86.

            You know when it’s 90C it’s about to be boiling, just makes no sense why you gotta memorize 212F.

            What? How often are you putting thermometers in whatever it is you’re boiling? You just heat it until it boils. It doesn’t matter what the number is.

            • MidRomney@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              7 months ago

              Thank you for making sense lol. Who’s putting a meat thermometer in water to make sure it’s boiling? It’s boiling when it’s boiling.

              • Sagifurius@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                7 months ago

                people actually use boiling water to calibrate their meat thermometers, but they always forget to check their elevation. boiling point here is 205 degrees, and 7 degrees matters when say chicken is safe at 160 but you actually pulled it off at 155

          • BeardedSingleMalt@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            7 months ago

            i dunno, 68F on a cloudy windy day isn’t as pleasant as 68F and sunny.

            But then again I’m from Ohio and I won’t bother to put on so much as a vest until it hits 50s

        • ThisOne@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          68f is for sure t-shirt weather. 86f is for sure T-shirt weather.

          Who TF bundles up if it’s 86 deg.

          Super confused, you bundle up at 68f for normal ideal summer temps? Or is 68-86 Gigantic enough you need long sleeves? Or like just low keyed afraid are you of the outdoors at 20c? Spoiler alert… It’s nice?

          • Fal@yiffit.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            7 months ago

            68f is for sure t-shirt weather.

            68 is not t-shirt weather for a lot of people.

            What is this about “bundling up”? Literally no one said anything about bundling up. But 68 and 86 are just fundamentally different temperature categories.

            you bundle up at 68f for normal ideal summer temps? Or is 68-86 Gigantic enough you need long sleeves?

            68 means you may or may not need a jacket, depending on the wind, fog, etc. It also means you should probably carry a jacket because it’s likely to drop down below “t-shirt” weather when the sun goes down. 86 means you’ll likely not need a jacket at all, even at night. And it means the wind will be refreshing rather than biting. And it might mean shorts as well.

            Like, I just don’t believe that you can’t understand how 68 and 86 are fundamentally different temperature categories

            • ThisOne@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              68 is shorts and T-shirt weather in my part of the world. No one carries a jacket around if it’s that warm. Maybe it’s cold to you if you live between the tropics? I can’t speak to that

              20-30c is a cool shortcut that F doesn’t really have. The original comment is just a decent guideline and “I just don’t believe that you can’t understand” what a guideline is.

              But if you need all this stuff to exist outside in nice weather maybe a quick guideline is not for you…

              • Fal@yiffit.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                20-30c is a cool shortcut that F doesn’t really have.

                What kind of shortcut? 68-80 are so massively different. Even if 68 is shorts and t-shirt for you, that means 86 is “uncomfortably hot”. And even if 68 is t-shirt weather, it means at night it’s going to drop probalby 10 degrees. So 68 is “tshirt weather right now, but bring a jacket”, and 86 is “tshirt weather but leave the jacket at home”. and the 10 degree bands of F are perfect for that. 60s is “cool, may or may not require a jacket depending on your preference”. 70s is “nice right now but prepare for cool when the sun goes down”, 80s is “warm, don’t bring a jacket”, etc.

                So sure, we don’t have the “20-30c” shortcut (again, way too big to be useful). We have EVERY 10 degree band as a shortcut

                • ThisOne@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  68-80 are similar temps. I’m comfy at both. I wear the same thing outdoors at both temps.

                  I’m sorry you don’t I guess and are offended that someone else is different than you.

                  20-30 is easier to understand than 68-80 for most people (obviously there’s an exception)

    • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      7 months ago

      This is a funny argument I see from Yanks all the time.

      Someone teach these Yanks about negative numbers, please!

      • Fal@yiffit.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 months ago

        What do negative numbers have to do with anything? -1F = cold as fuck

        • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 months ago

          . F describes the temperature scale that humans interact with much better than C does.

          Usually this silly argument is about 0-100 thing. But Yanks don’t seem to understand that you can do negative numbers, you don’t have to be within 0-100 range.

          • Fal@yiffit.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            Yes, negative numbers exist, and numbers beyond 100. But they’re not that important. 0 is basically the lowest temperature that matters in day to day life. If it’s colder, you don’t do anything different unless you’re preparing for an outdoor adventure. Same with 100. 100 is the hottest temperature that makes a difference. Beyond 100 it only matters if you’re preparing for an outdoor adventure. The 100 degree scale is about describing the normal range that humans interact with their environment in. Even if it can get extreme beyond that, that doesn’t mean the 0-100 scale isn’t useful.

            • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              7 months ago

              Yes, negative numbers exist, and numbers beyond 100. But they’re not that important.

              They kinda are though lol.

              The 100 degree scale is about describing the normal range that humans interact with their environment in

              But what about sauna. What about really cold weather. What about cooking. Hell, what about my PC. What about when I have a fever. What about really hot weather… The temperatures are about much more than the fuzzy idea about normal-ish weather in certain places on earth.

              Even if it can get extreme beyond that, that doesn’t mean the 0-100 scale isn’t useful.

              It just means it doesn’t have much benefit to it at all. The whole argument for it is silly.

                • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  They’ve started a holy war to preach the benefit of staying between 0-100. I admire their conviction, even if I think their argument is nonsense.

              • Fal@yiffit.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                7 months ago

                They kinda are though lol.

                Not really. Explain what you do differently in -10F temperatures that you wouldn’t do in 0F temperatures in normal life. I don’t want to hear about how you would choose a different sleeping bag or prepare your snow shoes differently or some shit. When your day consists of commuting to work, going to the grocery store, then going home, what meaningful difference do any values below 0F have.

                But what about sauna. What about it?

                What about really cold weather.

                What about it?

                What about cooking.

                What about it?

                Hell, what about my PC.

                What about it?

                What about when I have a fever

                This is actually the perfect example. Above 100 is a fever. Below is fine

                What about really hot weather

                What about it?

                The temperatures are about much more than the fuzzy idea about normal-ish weather in certain places on earth.

                Not in 99% of how people use the temperature.

                And your examples of cooking and your PC are not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about human environmental temperature. But in fact, cooking is another good use for F. You generally only care about a few specific temps. 350F and 400F. Anything else is nuance but basically only matter on the 25 degree marks. So 375, 425. It’s actually a pretty great scale for cooking, with broiling generally maxing out at 500 (unless you’re talking very specific application, like pizza ovens or some shit)

                • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  7 months ago

                  Yes, negative numbers exist, and numbers beyond 100. But they’re not that important.

                  The 100 degree scale is about describing the normal range that humans interact with their environment in

                  “Well what about all these things outside of this range people use in their daily life?”

                  What about it?

                  LOL

                  And your examples of cooking and your PC are not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about human environmental temperature.

                  I’m making the case that your “human environmental temperature” is a shit reason to pick Fahrenheit because we have all these things that surprisingly don’t conform to it. So you’ll have to go outside the 0-100 range anyway. So you won’t get any “benefit” from it, even when the “benefit” was dubious to begin with.

                  But in fact, cooking is another good use for F. You generally only care about a few specific temps. 350F and 400F. Anything else is nuance but basically only matter on the 25 degree marks. So 375, 425. It’s actually a pretty great scale for cooking, with broiling generally maxing out at 500 (unless you’re talking very specific application, like pizza ovens or some shit)

                  Wait till you see international ovens and cooking manuals. It’s gonna blow your mind.

      • Fal@yiffit.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Explain how interacting with ovens and freezers requires knowledge of the specific temperature at which water freezes or boils at standard conditions

    • kaffiene@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      Rubbish. The rest of the world understands temperatures in Celsius perfectly well. You’re confusing familiarity with superiority

  • Thranduil@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    7 months ago

    Mother tell the children not to check the temps. Tell the children not to read my books what they mean what they say.

    Sorry i read Danzig so I though of the band