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 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 1 points 1 year 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