this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2023
1382 points (100.0% liked)
196
16490 readers
2727 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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
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?
Cooking
Explain how it's useful in cooking. Considering it doesn't actually boil at 100 degrees unless there's very specific environmental conditions
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
Oh wow two numbers with a really fuzzy meaning, how convenient
How about freezing? Super useful info in places that have snow and ice
Humans care about the fact that water boils or freezes. Not the temperature at which it happens
I'm prepared to die on the Farenheit system is better for describing environmental temperature hill
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 jokeNo no, this guy's got a point!
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.
Explain how
You're getting a false sense of security. Do you think -1C = dangerous and 1C = safe or something?
Wtf? Explain how
You mean the way I did in the parts you quoted after writing this?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
You have no understanding of randomness if you think that 100 is equally random as 212 in our decimal system. No, not every number is equally random, no matter how often you repeat it.
Acknowledging that powers of a number systems base are special in that system isn't something I ever thought people would disagree with.
Why do you think we have concepts like "percentages"?
You're so close to getting it - why is it not a fraction of 10, but a fraction of 100?
So we use fractions of 100 instead of fractions of 10 because base 60 was too useful? How does that make any sense? The question wasn't why we use base 100 instead of base 60.
Not really able to lead a conversation without non-sequiturs, are you?
No, it's a full-on non-sequitur. As I said, the question wasn't why we use fractions of 100 instead of fractions of 60, but why we use fractions of 100 instead of fractions of 10. What you're saying doesn't relate at all to my question.
But I'm done here, you're either arguing in incredibly bad faith, or you're not capable of understanding my questions. Either isn't something I'll spend more time on.