I’m not sure I agree with the take for farenheit. It’s an arbitraty choice, and to me who grew up in a country that uses celsius, I find that far easier to understand and farenheit may as well be random numbers to me.
I grew up in Canada, but in a temperate climate area on the border with the US. Winter? Use Celsius. Summer? Use Fahrenheit. For me Celsius makes a lot more sense right around 0C. After about 15C my brain switches over and starts using Fahrenheit. I like the Fahrenheit scale from 60-100F for gauging the summer months. The Celsius scale isn’t granular enough. It feels like there’s a big difference between 18C and 22C versus the comparable 64F-72F. But I also was taught early a quick and dirty conversion. C to F, double and add 30. F to C subtract 30 and divide by 2.
I don’t think I can tell the difference if something is only one degree apart in Celcius, let alone Fahrenheit.
Comparing an 18C day to a 19C day, for example, I challenge anyone to notice a difference. A 64F to 65F day? Good luck.
I agree with the Celsius scale making sense around zero. Water freezing is probably one of the most relatable, quantifiable examples of a temperature point for the most humans. However, lots of people don’t live somewhere that it snows, or even own a freezer.
So what’s the most common touch point for people? I’d go with water boiling. I can’t really think of what sort of person who did not have exposure to that at some point. That should be the zero point, the common denominator.
So humans feel cold at 0F and hot at 100F? I dont think thats true. Humans start quickly dying at something around 32F and 180F. Fahrenheit is complete nonsense. It has nothing to do with humans. And considering humans are mostly water Celsius seems a much better fit.
In aggregate this is absolutely true, though not the point anyone is making.
Humans start quickly dying at something around 32F and 180F
Humans will die of dehydration or heat stroke quite quickly at temperatures well below 180F. In fact that’s far hotter than the hottest recorded temp on Earth (~135F/56.7C) (not including human-made environs like a sauna or outliers like an active volcano) so I’m frankly not sure what point your even trying to make here.
Fahrenheit is complete nonsense. It has nothing to do with humans.
The latter statement is manifestly false. Fahrenheit was originally supposed to have 90 degrees as the average humans body temp (no clue why 90 and not 100). Due to inaccuracies in measurements of the time, It was later changed to 96 and then 98.7. Still no clue why not just 100, but the fact remains it was based on human body temps. The zero point was selected using the freezing point of a brine mixture. No real defending that one, it was pretty much arbitrary.
And considering humans are mostly water Celsius seems a much better fit.
But we aren’t just water. In any case, humans are rarely at boiling temperature. My ideal temp scale would have 0 at water’s freezing point and 100 at a humans body temp.
Why base it on human body temperature at all though? That’s only useful when you’re trying to see if you have a fever, and even then that’s a number that varies wildly between people.
Air temperature is what we most often measure and talk about, and it needs to be far below body temperature to be comfortable.
A useful way to think about it (and I think what the OOP is saying) is to think about it as a scale from 0-100. Where 0 is like the coldest humans can deal with and 100 is the hottest humans can deal with. Obviously this isn’t strictly true (it gets to like 115 in death valley) but as an imperfect generalization it’s pretty useful.
oof great point, i didn’t think you could convince me to hate farenheit, i was ride or die for the imperial temperature measurement unit until right now
Yeah, no, that’s not helpful at all - what I consider cold and what my mum considers cold are very different temperatures, and what I consider hot and my neighbour considers hot has an even bigger difference.
You rationalise it with the “human scale” idea, but really you just know the range of temperatures you’re personally comfortable in, just like everyone using Celsius does.
Whatever your grew up with will always seem more intuitive for most people. But given that I grew up with Fahrenheit, the whole “0 is cold as fuck, 100 is hot as fuck” thing works for me.
Yeah, pretty much. I figured it was probably implied that I’m in the states. :)
I mean, SI units are objectively the best, and align with metric in most cases, but my brain is conditioned to accept Fahrenheit and miles per hour natively. Celsius and km/h have to go through an interpreter to convert them.
I have to say though, km/h has that “0 to 100” thing going for it that Fahrenheit does. 100 isn’t the fastest you’ll go, but it’s a typical highway speed.
Outside of the USA noone knows what idk, 50°F feels like. Probably around room temperature since you say it’s based on how humans feel but I have no idea.
Yeah after I discovered that sort of meaning for fahrenheit, it made a lot more sense to me. So no issues with fahrenheit, but imperial is still crazy to me
Fahrenheit was not an entirely arbitrary choice: it was defined based on two points of reference that could be measured at the time: the freezing temperature of an ammonium chloride brine is used as 0, and the best estimate for the average human body temperature is set at 96.
Over time, as the freezing point and boiling point of water at sea level atmospheric pressure proves to be more accurate reference points, the Fahrenheit scale was adjusted to provide exact conversion to Celsius.
it’s not arbitrary, it’s based on the uh, the freezing temperature of uh, ammonium chloride! we’re all familiar with how cold that is! and, and, and, uh, the upper end is, uh … they decided on 96. it’s not arbitrary!!!
When it’s above 100, people who have options for something lower will generally go for them. Similarly for under 0. OK, so as PancakeLegend@mander.xyz pointed out, such sensitivities might be specific to US culture, but theoretically, how much would we have to expand the 0-100 Fahrenheit range so that 0 is too cold for pretty much everyone and 100 is too hot for pretty much everyone? 0 goes to -10, 100 to 140? A new-Fahrenheit degree would still be more precise than a Celsius degree.
My point is “really hot” and “really cold” are not useful reference points to ascribe to, no matter what numbers you’re using. If i was coming up with a measurement system for brightness and i said 1000 was “really bright” would you be able to tell me anything about 500? No because you literally have no reference frame for what i mean by “really bright”. It’s the same thing when Americans describe Fahrenheit to the rest of the world. You have to experience the data points, and at that point, whether you use 0 to 100, -20 to 40, or 250 to 310, it doesn’t matter. You will just intuitively understand the scale and so there’s no inherent benefit.
I’m not sure I agree with the take for farenheit. It’s an arbitraty choice, and to me who grew up in a country that uses celsius, I find that far easier to understand and farenheit may as well be random numbers to me.
I grew up in Canada, but in a temperate climate area on the border with the US. Winter? Use Celsius. Summer? Use Fahrenheit. For me Celsius makes a lot more sense right around 0C. After about 15C my brain switches over and starts using Fahrenheit. I like the Fahrenheit scale from 60-100F for gauging the summer months. The Celsius scale isn’t granular enough. It feels like there’s a big difference between 18C and 22C versus the comparable 64F-72F. But I also was taught early a quick and dirty conversion. C to F, double and add 30. F to C subtract 30 and divide by 2.
I don’t think I can tell the difference if something is only one degree apart in Celcius, let alone Fahrenheit.
Comparing an 18C day to a 19C day, for example, I challenge anyone to notice a difference. A 64F to 65F day? Good luck.
I agree with the Celsius scale making sense around zero. Water freezing is probably one of the most relatable, quantifiable examples of a temperature point for the most humans. However, lots of people don’t live somewhere that it snows, or even own a freezer.
So what’s the most common touch point for people? I’d go with water boiling. I can’t really think of what sort of person who did not have exposure to that at some point. That should be the zero point, the common denominator.
Yeah it’s less human based than Celsius since humans survive equally on the sides of 0 (-40 to 40)
So humans feel cold at 0F and hot at 100F? I dont think thats true. Humans start quickly dying at something around 32F and 180F. Fahrenheit is complete nonsense. It has nothing to do with humans. And considering humans are mostly water Celsius seems a much better fit.
In aggregate this is absolutely true, though not the point anyone is making.
Humans will die of dehydration or heat stroke quite quickly at temperatures well below 180F. In fact that’s far hotter than the hottest recorded temp on Earth (~135F/56.7C) (not including human-made environs like a sauna or outliers like an active volcano) so I’m frankly not sure what point your even trying to make here.
The latter statement is manifestly false. Fahrenheit was originally supposed to have 90 degrees as the average humans body temp (no clue why 90 and not 100). Due to inaccuracies in measurements of the time, It was later changed to 96 and then 98.7. Still no clue why not just 100, but the fact remains it was based on human body temps. The zero point was selected using the freezing point of a brine mixture. No real defending that one, it was pretty much arbitrary.
But we aren’t just water. In any case, humans are rarely at boiling temperature. My ideal temp scale would have 0 at water’s freezing point and 100 at a humans body temp.
Why base it on human body temperature at all though? That’s only useful when you’re trying to see if you have a fever, and even then that’s a number that varies wildly between people.
Air temperature is what we most often measure and talk about, and it needs to be far below body temperature to be comfortable.
A useful way to think about it (and I think what the OOP is saying) is to think about it as a scale from 0-100. Where 0 is like the coldest humans can deal with and 100 is the hottest humans can deal with. Obviously this isn’t strictly true (it gets to like 115 in death valley) but as an imperfect generalization it’s pretty useful.
Then 50 is the optimal temperature right?
With 80 being as uncomfortable as 20
oof great point, i didn’t think you could convince me to hate farenheit, i was ride or die for the imperial temperature measurement unit until right now
Nice sarcasm but I wasn’t telling you to hate it, just that your statement wasn’t logical
oh no that was sincere sorry. i really mean that you actually made a great point
Yeah, no, that’s not helpful at all - what I consider cold and what my mum considers cold are very different temperatures, and what I consider hot and my neighbour considers hot has an even bigger difference.
You rationalise it with the “human scale” idea, but really you just know the range of temperatures you’re personally comfortable in, just like everyone using Celsius does.
Whatever your grew up with will always seem more intuitive for most people. But given that I grew up with Fahrenheit, the whole “0 is cold as fuck, 100 is hot as fuck” thing works for me.
Farenheit is asking Americans how hot they feel.
Yeah, pretty much. I figured it was probably implied that I’m in the states. :)
I mean, SI units are objectively the best, and align with metric in most cases, but my brain is conditioned to accept Fahrenheit and miles per hour natively. Celsius and km/h have to go through an interpreter to convert them.
I have to say though, km/h has that “0 to 100” thing going for it that Fahrenheit does. 100 isn’t the fastest you’ll go, but it’s a typical highway speed.
Do Americans feel heat differently or something?
Outside of the USA noone knows what idk, 50°F feels like. Probably around room temperature since you say it’s based on how humans feel but I have no idea.
Fahrenheit is our broken clock being right once a day
Yeah after I discovered that sort of meaning for fahrenheit, it made a lot more sense to me. So no issues with fahrenheit, but imperial is still crazy to me
As an American this is how I feel. I don’t mind Fahrenheit but for absolutely everything else I desperately wish we’d switch.
Fahrenheit was not an entirely arbitrary choice: it was defined based on two points of reference that could be measured at the time: the freezing temperature of an ammonium chloride brine is used as 0, and the best estimate for the average human body temperature is set at 96.
Over time, as the freezing point and boiling point of water at sea level atmospheric pressure proves to be more accurate reference points, the Fahrenheit scale was adjusted to provide exact conversion to Celsius.
…96? How is 96 a point of reference when you are making a scale from scratch?
it’s not arbitrary, it’s based on the uh, the freezing temperature of uh, ammonium chloride! we’re all familiar with how cold that is! and, and, and, uh, the upper end is, uh … they decided on 96. it’s not arbitrary!!!
bro used a wojak unironically lmao
Rightfully so
“Oh but 100 Fahrenheit means 100/100 on the hot scale, it just makes intuitive sense!”
WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN?? Fahrenheit lovers literally don’t know how ridiculous they sound
What’s not to get lol. Think about when it’s really really cold outside. That’s 0. Think about when it’s really really hot outside. That’s 100.
No? Lmao
When it’s above 100, people who have options for something lower will generally go for them. Similarly for under 0. OK, so as PancakeLegend@mander.xyz pointed out, such sensitivities might be specific to US culture, but theoretically, how much would we have to expand the 0-100 Fahrenheit range so that 0 is too cold for pretty much everyone and 100 is too hot for pretty much everyone? 0 goes to -10, 100 to 140? A new-Fahrenheit degree would still be more precise than a Celsius degree.
My point is “really hot” and “really cold” are not useful reference points to ascribe to, no matter what numbers you’re using. If i was coming up with a measurement system for brightness and i said 1000 was “really bright” would you be able to tell me anything about 500? No because you literally have no reference frame for what i mean by “really bright”. It’s the same thing when Americans describe Fahrenheit to the rest of the world. You have to experience the data points, and at that point, whether you use 0 to 100, -20 to 40, or 250 to 310, it doesn’t matter. You will just intuitively understand the scale and so there’s no inherent benefit.
Nah it’s more like, one degree fahrenheit is the smallest change in temp that the average human can sense.