100C is literally instant death.
Laughs in Finnish (while sipping beer in a 100C Sauna)
Comment on temperature
imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works 8 months agoLet me explain. Anything below 0F is really cold for a human, and anything above 100F is really hot. The Fahrenheit scale was built around human biology.
0C isn’t even that cold, and 100C is literally instant death. Thus, Celsius is less applicable to the human experience and more applicable to the physical properties of water. The typical range of human scale temperatures is like -10 to 40 degrees on the Celsius scale? Makes no sense.
Kelvin is the most scientifically objective scale, but also the least intuitive for humans, because absolute zero is completely outside our frame of reference.
So it’s easily demonstrable that Fahrenheit is how people feel, Celsius is how water feels, and Kelvin is how molecules feel.
Be forewarned that I am willing to die on this hill, and any challenges to my position will result in increasingly large walls of text until you have conceded the point.
KISSmyOS@feddit.de 8 months ago
N0x0n@lemmy.ml 8 months ago
He will surely die on his hill… ALONE !
ech@lemm.ee 8 months ago
Yes, a totally safe thing to do 🙄
KISSmyOS@feddit.de 8 months ago
The starting temperature is 110 degrees Celsius. Half a litre of water will be poured on the stove every 30 seconds.
Well, that’s just dumb. That’s a steam bath, not a sauna.
sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz 8 months ago
On 7 August 2010, Russian finalist and former third-place finisher Vladimir Ladyzhensky and Finnish five-time champion Timo Kaukonen passed out after six minutes of 110 °C (230 °F) heat, both suffering from serious burns and trauma. According to a spectator, Kaukonen was able to leave the sauna with assistance, but Ladyzhensky had to be dragged out, suffering from convulsions, burns, and blisters.[5] Ladyzhensky died despite resuscitation and Kaukonen was rushed to the hospital.[6] He was reported to suffer from extreme burn injuries, and his condition was described as critical, but stable.
I guess that would put a damper on future competitions. Seems like something from an old Simpsons episode.
FiskFisk33@startrek.website 8 months ago
Unsafe, yes, instant death? not even almost.
efstajas@lemmy.world 8 months ago
The typical range of human scale temperatures is like -10 to 40 degrees on the Celsius scale? Makes no sense.
But it makes so much sense though. Because it’s anchored around the freezing and boiling points of water, which is a universal experience we can all relate to. 0°C outside? It’s freezing.
Fahrenheit as “the human scale” is what makes no fucking sense. You end up with the same exact problem where your specific range of “human scale temperatures” does not line up with 0-100°F at all. But it’s also not anchored to water’s behavior. So it just ends up being arbitrary.
imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works 8 months ago
But it makes so much sense though. Because it’s anchored around the freezing and boiling points of water, which is a universal experience we can all relate to. 0°C outside? It’s freezing.
It does make sense. But no, I cannot personally relate to being H2O and freezing into a block of ice or evaporating into the air.
As a human, I can relate to when I feel cold, and when I feel hot. And a scale where I feel hot at 30 degrees and cold at -10 is not even remotely intuitive.
You end up with the same exact problem where your specific range of “human scale temperatures” does not line up with 0-100°F at all.
Human scale temperatures do line up with 0-100 on the Fahrenheit scale. Certainly much better than 0-100 on the Celsius scale. How are you even disputing that???
tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip 8 months ago
Of course what you grew up with makes the most sense, but everyone down voting you for saying 0–100 makes more sense in a vacuum than -20–40 always makes me laugh in these kinds of threads.
imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works 8 months ago
The timing of this comment is really killing me. Americans were just going to bed when I posted it 😂
noli@programming.dev 8 months ago
It’s all learned behaviour. If you grew up with F that makes total sense and C sounds ridiculous. If you grew up with C that’s totally intuitive for anyone, just as much as F, so using a scale that has no point outside of the weather sounds dumb. Neither system is more intuitive by any means. Both systems ave benefits and downsides.
Whenever I talk to americans and they use F I need to convert it because I grew up with C and that just makes more sense to me, even if I know the “0-100 F is according to human experience” thing. Like sure, 80F is hot, but how hot is it? Oh 27C that’s hot but not extreme.
Arguing one or the other is superior is not only pointless but also just silly
Wild_Mastic@lemmy.world 8 months ago
wait 80f is 27c? That’s not hot at all
uienia@lemmy.world 8 months ago
But no, I cannot personally relate
And there we have it. You are not used to the system, so you can’t personally relate to it. Which is a perfectly acceptable opinion to hold. The problem is that you make a lot of claims about a system you are not as familiar with, most notably that it isn’t useful for what it is actually being used for by the majority of humans.
Nudding@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Weird because you’re made of mostly water. Like 70 something percent.
GojuRyu@lemmy.world 8 months ago
So when my neighbors mother from another climate came to visit during the summer, I was wearing shorts and t-shirts but she a winter jacket. According to whos experience did Fahrenheit match the human experience? It’s very variable and cannot be made to fit everyone. That water freezes at 0 is just as arbitrary but at least it’s an experience/observation anyone can share. If it’s 0°C outside puddles will freeze. Is it warmer or colder than when ice and snow melts is as good a reference as any, and to me having grown up with it, it feels superior because it’s what I’m used to.
FiskFisk33@startrek.website 8 months ago
Anything below 0F is really cold for a human
Anything below 10F is really cold for a human too, and so is anything below -10F what’s your point?
100C is literally instant death.
While commonly between 80 and 100, finnish sauna temperatures up to 110°c are not unheard of.
Very hot, but definitely not even close to instant death.
imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works 8 months ago
While commonly between 80 and 100, finnish sauna temperatures up to 110°c are not unheard of.
Very hot, but definitely not even close to instant death.
Really? My whole thesis paper about how humans immediately explode into a million pieces when they reach 100 degrees Celsius is completely ruined. How will I ever recover?
Anything below 10F is really cold for a human too, and so is anything below -10F what’s your point?
My point is self evident, you’re willfully ignoring it.
FiskFisk33@startrek.website 8 months ago
My point is self evident, you’re willfully ignoring it.
No it isn’t. No I am not. I am not trying to say Celsius is better than Farenheit. I however don’t agree with your argument that F is somehow more suited to humans.
It is simply a question of which one you are used to, and have built up an internal system of references to. Just as you feel your references are self evident, I feel the same about Celsius.
imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works 8 months ago
I have admittedly expounded at length in this thread already. If my point isn’t obvious, I’m not sure how.
Maybe I explained it slightly better here.
spoiler
>Generally -40 to 40 are the extremes of livable areas. Sure, water is a really good system and it works well. And for F that range is -40 to 104. See how you get 64 extra degrees of precision and nearly all of them are double digit numbers? No downside. Furthermore F can use its base 10 system to describe useful ranges of temperature such as the 20s, 60s, etc. So you have 144 degrees instead of just 80, and you also have the option to utilize a more broad 16 degree scale that’s also built in. You might say that Celsius technically also has an 8 degree scale(10s, 30s), but I would argue that the range of 10 degrees Celsius is too broad to be useful in the same way. In order to scale such that 0C is water freezing and 100C boiling, it was necessary for the units to become larger and thus the 10C shorthand is much less descriptive than the 10F shorthand, at least for most human purposes.
Laticauda@lemmy.ca 8 months ago
I grew up with celcius and to me it feels more applicable to the human experience. It literally only depends on which one you’re more used to, idk why people feel the need to come up with these weird unnecessary “explanations”.
rainynight65@feddit.de 8 months ago
Whenever I think that I have seen it all in one of these °F vs °C threads, someone comes along and proves me wrong.
No, the F scale was not built around human biology, that is pure conjecture from people who can’t let go of their antiquated system of measures.
But you go die on that hill, I won’t stop you.
imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works 8 months ago
Thoughts?
spoiler
>Generally -40 to 40 are the extremes of livable areas. Sure, water is a really good system and it works well. And for F that range is -40 to 104. See how you get 64 extra degrees of precision and nearly all of them are double digit numbers? No downside. Furthermore F can use its base 10 system to describe useful ranges of temperature such as the 20s, 60s, etc. So you have 144 degrees instead of just 80, and you also have the option to utilize a more broad 16 degree scale that’s also built in. You might say that Celsius technically also has an 8 degree scale(10s, 30s), but I would argue that the range of 10 degrees Celsius is too broad to be useful in the same way. In order to scale such that 0C is water freezing and 100C boiling, it was necessary for the units to become larger and thus the 10C shorthand is much less descriptive than the 10F shorthand, at least for most human purposes.
Gabu@lemmy.world 8 months ago
See how you get 64 extra degrees of precision and nearly all of them are double digit numbers? No downside.
Except you don’t, because all instrumentation uses celsius, as that is the sensible system. Also to human perception a difference of 1 degree C is already negligible, thinking adding an extra digit has any benefits is lunacy.
imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works 8 months ago
Any response to the rest of my point?
Also to human perception a difference of 1 degree C is already negligible, thinking adding an extra digit has any benefits is lunacy.
Source?
zaphod@feddit.de 8 months ago
Anything below 0F is really cold for a human, and anything above 100F is really hot.
Therefore the perfect temperature would be 50°F, which is 10°C, in my opinion a little too cold to be perfect, I’d prefer something in the 15-20°C range.
Gabu@lemmy.world 8 months ago
'murican being 'murican. That’s why nobody likes you people.
MisterHavoc@lemmy.world 8 months ago
I would not mind if you were to expand
imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works 8 months ago
My argument is actually pretty simple, but people could always challenge these assertions, in which case it would get much more complicated.
A) Fahrenheit has an appropriate level of granularity for humans B) Fahrenheit has an intuitive frame of reference for humans
Celsius and Kelvin do not. Celsius is adequate because it’s based on water, and all life on earth is also based on water, so it’s not totally out of our wheelhouse. But for humans specifically I think Fahrenheit is the clear answer.
One point that many may overlook is that most of us here are relatively smart and educated. There are a good number people on this planet who just aren’t very good with numbers. Obviously a genius could easily adapt their mind to Kelvin or whatever.
But Fahrenheit is the temperature scale of the proletariat, the working man, the average Joe. And I’m here for it.
Unskilled5117@feddit.de 8 months ago
Multiple problems with you assertions.
A) Fahrenheit has an appropriate level of granularity for humans
You know that Celsius uses decimals for everything, so really not much difference. Furthermore the granularity of Fahrenheit doesn‘t have any advantages. You won‘t be able to feel wether its 70°F or 71°F outside, nor if you’ve got a fever of 101°F or 102°F. You need to look at a thermometer. And please don‘t reply saying that decimals are complicated. The majority of the planet, except certain Countries seem to manage just fine. Would be quite laughable if one certain country thinks it‘s too complicated.
B) Fahrenheit has an intuitive frame of reference for humans
Not really sure what you are referencing. I think it just stems from you growing up with Fahrenheit, so not feeling comfortable with anything else.
But Fahrenheit is the temperature scale of the proletariat, the working man, the average Joe. And I’m here for it.
I mean the “proletariat” of the majority of the world uses Celsius.
imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works 8 months ago
Not really sure what you are referencing. I think it just stems from you growing up with Fahrenheit, so not feeling comfortable with anything else.
Read some of my other comments. 0-100 is more intuitive than -18-38, no? None of you have even been willing to admit that simple fact yet.
Furthermore the granularity of Fahrenheit doesn‘t have any advantages. You won‘t be able to feel wether its 70°F or 71°F outside, nor if you’ve got a fever of 101°F or 102°F. You need to look at a thermometer. And please don‘t reply saying that decimals are complicated. The majority of the planet, except certain Countries seem to manage just fine. Would be quite laughable if one certain country thinks it‘s too complicated.
Agree to disagree.
brb@sh.itjust.works 8 months ago
-10C or 10C: Pretty comfortable -20C or 20C: Starting to feel bit cold or hot -30C or 30C: Uncomfortably cold or hot -40C or 40C: Almost painfully cold or hot
How exactly is -40F to 104F better than that for human purposes?
kureta@lemmy.ml 8 months ago
Where are you from that 10C is pretty comfortable and 20C is getting hot? Greetings from the middle east :)
taiyang@lemmy.world 8 months ago
I like watching people dying in this hill, more power to you. I don’t necessarily agree, but telling people it’s negative anything just to say it’s pretty cold is indeed less intuitive to me (and kids don’t even know negatives until a bit older).
Only thing is, 100 doesn’t need to be anyone’s scale, with C I think of it more like a scale from 10 to 40, especially since I live in California, and F is more a scale from 50 to 110. It’d probably help if F really was based on human temps, with 100 being the average temp whenever you measure, instead of 96 to 98.
(An aside, neither are ratio scales. 0 in both cases are arbitrary and a temp of 100 isn’t twice as hot as 50. Only Kelvin is like that, which makes it my favorite even if it’s never intuitive, haha)
RustnRuin@lemm.ee 8 months ago
When I was a kid, I learned about negative numbers pretty early on. It was a perfectly normal part of life, since the temp was in the negative a lot of the year. Made sense to me. Temp is below zero? Water is solid. . Temp above zero? Water is liquid. Fahrenheit doesn’t make much sense to me, inherently, because I don’t have an integral frame of reference, built over decades of familiarity. Celcius on the other hand, it just makes sense!
taiyang@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Sure, negatives aren’t hard, nor are decimals. But I should remind you we’re talking about a population that wouldn’t buy a third-pounder hamburger because they thought a quarter-pounder was more. Fractions are covered pretty early on, too!
Joking aside, if F actually was based on something specific and measurable, it’d also make sense. Then it’s just a matter of what you got used to. Granted, human temps vary, so you can’t just make 100 the human temp and 0 the temp a human dies, so that’s an impossibity. (Water can vary too under circumstances if I remember right, but not quite as much or as unpredictable as some human based metric).
hessenjunge@discuss.tchncs.de 8 months ago
Did it never occur to you that Celsius is basically Kelvin with the zero point moved to human reference?
Human reference because >50% of our body is water. We are essentially water bags.
taiyang@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Yeah, I know. It still moves the zero point and forces it out of ratio, but I prefer it. I know both F and C since I have to use both regularly. F is set to C, too, I think. F = 1.8c + 36, I think?
hessenjunge@discuss.tchncs.de 8 months ago
No, it just moves the zero point, no ratio change: 0°C = 273,15 K / just a simple addition/subtraction.
Colloquially you can also ignore the 0,15 and make it even simpler.
davidgro@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Only Kelvin is like that
False. Rankine is too.
I didn’t find any others in a quick glance at the wiki, but it would be easy to imagine a scale like 0 at absolute zero, and 100 at the freezing point of water or something.
taiyang@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Never heard of Rankine, but it sounds like a Kelvin with a similar conversation to F (9/5, or 1.8, only inverse). Description suggestions as much, too. If I told students about it when talking about ratio scales, though, pretty sure it’d be a tad too much. Most haven’t even heard of Kelvin!
imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works 8 months ago
An aside, neither are ratio scales. 0 in both cases are arbitrary and a temp of 100 isn’t twice as hot as 50. Only Kelvin is like that, which makes it my favorite even if it’s never intuitive, haha
Huh, TIL. That’s actually pretty cool. Kelvin moving up the rankings 😅
taiyang@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Haha, I teach statistics and it’s usually a tough one walk on. You need a natural zero for ratios, even if the concept is a little weird (like 0 height). 2m is twice 1m, etc. My go to with interval (the non ratio continuous metric) tends to be likart scales. Or yelp stars, or any other arbitrary zero. I do mention temps, though
imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works 8 months ago
Makes sense. I always knew Kelvin started at absolute zero, but I don’t think I had ever heard of a ratio scale. I’m sure it has some kind of statistical implications about how you can analyze the data right?
uienia@lemmy.world 8 months ago
That is a large amount of text to say “I am used to fahrenheit therefore it makes sense to me, and now I will proceed to claim it is the only system that shows how humans feel”.
jballs@sh.itjust.works 8 months ago
Looks like you made the mistake of posting this when the European downvote gang was awake.
imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works 8 months ago
I just got absolutely obliterated. Believe it or not, I got up to +10 on that initial comment at one point. I think if I had formally presented my argument initially, it may have gone better.
I just didn’t realize that mentioning Celsius was going to set off this kind of reaction. It’s so weird the things that different cultures hold sacred.
jballs@sh.itjust.works 8 months ago
Lol I’ve got burned by it before too
EnderofGames@sh.itjust.works 8 months ago
imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works 8 months ago
A) Fahrenheit has an appropriate level of granularity for humans
B) Fahrenheit has an intuitive frame of reference for humans
Celsius and Kelvin do not.
I don’t want to fight about this I just think it’s actually true, and I also think Europeans get insanely defensive about stuff like this for no reason.
eldain@feddit.nl 8 months ago
A) So is Celsius, you do everything in double digits until you turn on your oven. B) If 50F was actually room temperature (the middle of too hot and too cold), I could agree. The fact that is is not means for me the intuition is learned and not natural. And that I have to learn a few anchorpoints to convert my own intuition when I ever visit the US.
imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works 8 months ago
Idk how your A relates to mine, if anything that’s more about the frame of reference, not the granularity. Let me try to clarify.
You have to use negative numbers more frequently with Celsius > Celsius has a less intuitive frame of reference (I will concede that at least it’s better than being in triple digits all the time like Kelvin)
Each Celsius degree is nearly two Fahrenheit degrees > Celsius is less granular
The reason I argue the more granular Fahrenheit is more intuitive is because a one degree change should intuitively be quite minor. But since you only have like 40 or 50 degrees to describe the entire gamut of human experiences with Celsius, it blends together a bit too much. I know that people will say to use decimals, but its the same flaw as negative numbers. It’s simply unintuitive and cumbersome.
B) 66F is room temperature. Halfway between freezing (32F) and 100F.
All scales have to be learned, obviously. It’s far easier to create intuitive anchorpoints in a 0-100 system than a -18 to 38 system. Thus, Fahrenheit is more intuitive for the average person.
I should note that if you are a scientist, the argument completely changes. If you are doing experiments and making calcualtions across a much wider range of temperatures, Celsius and Kelvin are much more intuitive. But we are talking about the average human experience, and for that situation, I maintain Fahrenheit supremacy
FiskFisk33@startrek.website 8 months ago
true.
false.
…
imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works 8 months ago
Sure, water is a really good system and it works well.
And for F that range is -40 to 104. See how you get 64 extra degrees of precision and nearly all of them are double digit numbers? No downside.
Furthermore F can use its base 10 system to describe useful ranges of temperature such as the 20s, 60s, etc. So you have 144 degrees instead of just 80, and you also have the option to utilize a more broad 16 degree scale that’s also built in.
You might say that Celsius technically also has an 8 degree scale(10s, 30s), but I would argue that the range of 10 degrees Celsius is too broad to be useful in the same way. In order to scale such that 0C is water freezing and 100C boiling, it was necessary for the units to become larger and thus the 10C shorthand is much less descriptive than the 10F shorthand, at least for most human purposes.
uienia@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Unlike Americans, celsius users are not afraid of decimals, which fullfills all your graularity needs if you have them. But mostly it isn’t even needed because you literally cannot feel the difference.
Gabu@lemmy.world 8 months ago
You’ve provided zero proof of either statement.