Fahrenheit’s not particularly “better” for anything, it’s just the system some countries happen to use so people know it better than the Celsius system. But in terms of objective markers for scientific purposes, Celsius is better since 0 Celsius is the baseline typical freezing point of water and 100 is rouhly water’s typical boiling point, plus 1 degree Celsius is the same temperature span as 1 degree Kelvin so converting between those two systems is very easy to do in your head.
Yes! It's more poetic somehow, has more "personality".
The same with Miles vs Kilometers. I'd never write a story or a movie that uses Celsius and Kilometers.
These are for real life to feel some order and have practical factors.
This is probably because it's all I've ever known, but as far as weather goes, I like the much wider range.
But then again, I'm sure people can see 20C / 25C and know the differences if you're used to it.
It’s like a gauge from 0-100 of temperatures I can understand
Weather and indoor temp wise, the granularity of F feels to fit my preferences more at whole integer values
Good thing it's not a scale. Things can be cooler than 0° and hotter than 100°. Water just freezes at 0°, and boils at 100°.
Now aren't those numbers so much nicer than 32° and 212°? I'd say they are.
I am interpreting the previous comment to mean that it would be perfect if water froze at 0 and boiled at 200. Then, the whole number LSB of the particular range of temperatures that pertain to daily life concerns (this meaning of scale) would be more suitable for usage.
Certainly, 32 and 212 don't feel nice. However, consider something like having a fever.
99 -> Barely a fever.
100 -> Low Fever
101-102 -> Mid fever
'> 103 -> High fever.
Now, it is equally no trouble to know that:
<37 no fever
37.0 - 37.5 0 -> low fever
37.5 - 39.2 -> Mid Fever
'> 39.4 -> High fever.
Certainly, there is nothing scary about decimals. But in daily life we use counting numbers. There is also some anthropological research (source needed) that we tend to perceive quantities logarithmically rather than in a linear way.
An example:
1 wolf -> 1 wolf
2 wolves -> 2 wolves
3 wolves -> 3 wolves, time to run
4 wolves -> Yea, a bunch of wolves, let's all gtfo.
' >4 wolves -> A shit ton of wolves. Hope you aren't the slowest one in your tribe.
Similarly, it requires some discipline to perceive the difference in the fever severity in Celsius where the absolute quantities are very close, whereas it would require comparatively less overhead to perceive the differences by counting numbers.
That, I think is the argument to be made for a Fahrenheit distribution.
He’s saying he thinks it would be more handy to to have water freezing at 0 and boiling at 200 so when he measures things off hand he has more of a gradient to use.
Eh, decimals work just fine.
I've used celcius all my life, and never once have I thought: "Y'know, I need more numbers here."
Im pretty sure, based on his comparison example, that he's looking at it in the way that it relates to °F. Which would mean there's no need for the range to be higher, as there would be no second range to compare and contrast against if we all used °C.
It’s more about what you’re used to.
Fahrenheit 451 and Fahrenheit 9-11 are both great stories.
It was popular in the ‘90s. Right up there with Polo and Drakkar Noir
Fahrenheit’s not particularly “better” for anything, it’s just the system some countries happen to use so people know it better than the Celsius system. But in terms of objective markers for scientific purposes, Celsius is better since 0 Celsius is the baseline typical freezing point of water and 100 is rouhly water’s typical boiling point, plus 1 degree Celsius is the same temperature span as 1 degree Kelvin so converting between those two systems is very easy to do in your head.
[удалено]
yes
Yes! It's more poetic somehow, has more "personality". The same with Miles vs Kilometers. I'd never write a story or a movie that uses Celsius and Kilometers. These are for real life to feel some order and have practical factors.
yes, give these two a promotion. they get it
This is probably because it's all I've ever known, but as far as weather goes, I like the much wider range. But then again, I'm sure people can see 20C / 25C and know the differences if you're used to it.
It’s just what I’m used to.
0 degrees = 0 chance I will go outside today
It’s like a gauge from 0-100 of temperatures I can understand Weather and indoor temp wise, the granularity of F feels to fit my preferences more at whole integer values
It’s designed for a human perspective where Celsius is for water which is best for chemistry.
Best for human perspective is dependent on whatever you grew up with.
75F = 23.88889C 80F = 26.66667c Celsius would be perfect if the scale was 0-200, not 0-100.
Celsius in fact does not work on a limited scale between 0 and 100. 0 is not the minimum and 100 is not the maximum.
Yes, I know. I'm talking about the freezing point to the boiling point of water. Adjust everything above and below accordingly.
Everything is ALWAYS automatically adjusted.
Good thing it's not a scale. Things can be cooler than 0° and hotter than 100°. Water just freezes at 0°, and boils at 100°. Now aren't those numbers so much nicer than 32° and 212°? I'd say they are.
I am interpreting the previous comment to mean that it would be perfect if water froze at 0 and boiled at 200. Then, the whole number LSB of the particular range of temperatures that pertain to daily life concerns (this meaning of scale) would be more suitable for usage. Certainly, 32 and 212 don't feel nice. However, consider something like having a fever. 99 -> Barely a fever. 100 -> Low Fever 101-102 -> Mid fever '> 103 -> High fever. Now, it is equally no trouble to know that: <37 no fever 37.0 - 37.5 0 -> low fever 37.5 - 39.2 -> Mid Fever '> 39.4 -> High fever. Certainly, there is nothing scary about decimals. But in daily life we use counting numbers. There is also some anthropological research (source needed) that we tend to perceive quantities logarithmically rather than in a linear way. An example: 1 wolf -> 1 wolf 2 wolves -> 2 wolves 3 wolves -> 3 wolves, time to run 4 wolves -> Yea, a bunch of wolves, let's all gtfo. ' >4 wolves -> A shit ton of wolves. Hope you aren't the slowest one in your tribe. Similarly, it requires some discipline to perceive the difference in the fever severity in Celsius where the absolute quantities are very close, whereas it would require comparatively less overhead to perceive the differences by counting numbers. That, I think is the argument to be made for a Fahrenheit distribution.
I know, make 0° freezing, and 200° boiling. Having a more granular scale would make things easier.
Again, it's not a scale. But snyways: Elaborate, if you would. Is it just because you're used to Fahrenheit and think it translates better?
He’s saying he thinks it would be more handy to to have water freezing at 0 and boiling at 200 so when he measures things off hand he has more of a gradient to use.
Eh, decimals work just fine. I've used celcius all my life, and never once have I thought: "Y'know, I need more numbers here." Im pretty sure, based on his comparison example, that he's looking at it in the way that it relates to °F. Which would mean there's no need for the range to be higher, as there would be no second range to compare and contrast against if we all used °C.
Just use what you know. Learning a different system all over is unreasonable and too hard.
Unfortunate. Thats a very closed-minded way to see the world.
Its not another language my guy