Exactly. And you’re not even pointing out that the human frame of reference starts at -18 Celsius! So a significant portion of the time, you’re going to have to use negative numbers to describe the temperature. If someone can explain to me how a -18-38 scale is preferable to 0-100… I will be astounded
Comment on temperature
ech@lemm.ee 6 months agoYou’re missing the point. The scale is what matters, not your personal experience or preference. From 0-100 F is right about what a human could be expected to tolerate without much help. In C, that’s -18-38. That’s a much more limited range in terms of human tolerance, but it works great for water, which would be 0-100 C. The scale doesn’t translate as well to K, but it does end at 0, so there’s that.
imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works 6 months ago
FiskFisk33@startrek.website 6 months ago
the human frame of reference starts at -18 Celsius!
That makes no sense to me at all. what frame of reference? what happens at -18? Ive been out in temperatures both above and below that, yes its cold as fuck, but nothing special happens? If we move a bit further north here they’d call me a wuss, and tell me real cold starts at -30.
you’re going to have to use negative numbers to describe the temperature.
I find that really useful actually! Our world is made of water. In winter time here, temperatures above 0 means the snow will be soggy and wet, negative temperatures means it won’t.
if the temperature was above 0 but has now dipped into the negatives, beware of ice when walking or driving.
You can use all the arguments you want, the truth is either system is perfectly useful for human day-to-day use if you are used to it.
The best system, for you, will always be the one you grew up with
imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works 6 months ago
Don’t play dumb. We’re talking about the range of temperatures an average person experiences in their day-to-day lives.
In winter time here, temperatures above 0 means the snow will be soggy and wet, negative temperatures means it won’t.
This might blow your mind but you can do the same thing with Fahrenheit. Just look for the number 32 instead of 0.
You can use all the arguments you want, the truth is either system is perfectly useful for human day-to-day use if you are used to it.
The best system, for you, will always be the one you grew up with
I never said otherwise and I totally agree.
However they are different systems and they do have pros and cons. Fahrenheit is more suitable for daily life while Celsius is more suitable for science.
CEbbinghaus@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Sorry im clearly not your average person experiencing >38° on a regular basis. There are plenty of humans that exist in climates that fall entirely outside of what you Americans consider “normal”. Which is why saying “-18 - 38 is the ‘normal’ range for an average person” is such an American thing to say. You took your own climate and projected it across the world.
Personally I like to go with the system that makes the most sense for 70% of earth’s surface and 64% of a human body.
FiskFisk33@startrek.website 6 months ago
Just look for the number 32 instead of 0.
Now you are almost arguing against yourself, I can use the same argument about body temperature, just look for 37 instead of 100
However they are different systems and they do have pros and cons.
And this is a pro for me where I live.
I never said otherwise and I totally agree.
Fahrenheit is more suitable for daily life
These don’t square.
Celsius and farenheit is just as suitable for daily life. You learn your important reference points and go from there.
ech@lemm.ee 6 months ago
To be clear, I’m not saying people are wrong to use C. People can use any unit they want for all I care. I’m just clarifying to point of the main post.
imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works 6 months ago
Totally, same. This thread was started by OPs reply
Nah, it doesn’t make any sense, and isn’t deep or insightful at all.
That was what triggered my response, otherwise I probably woulda just upvoted and kept scrolling.
Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 6 months ago
From 0-100 F is right about what a human could be expected to tolerate without much help.
The fuck does this mean
FiskFisk33@startrek.website 6 months ago
Yet people live in negative farenheit conditions.
Try telling a northern siberian, who commonly see winter temperatures between -50 and -100 fahrenheit, that 0f is right about the limit for a human to tolerate…
GoodbyeBlueMonday@startrek.website 6 months ago
Exactly: or take folks who live in the tropics (about 40% of the human population) where it feels cold below 60F.
ech@lemm.ee 6 months ago
You think those people go out without thick, warm clothes? I get you’re really committed to arguing for C against people not even arguing against it, but come on now. You know what I’m saying. It’s not a particularly difficult concept to grasp.
FiskFisk33@startrek.website 6 months ago
You wouldn’t tolerate 0 farenheit in the nude either.
You wouldn’t tolerate 10 farenheit for extended periods either.
I know what you are saying and I disagree. I am not trying to say celsius is better than farenheit, I’m saying farenheit is not in any way intrinsically more human than celsius.
0 farenheit was chosen because that’s the temperature of salty ice, The lowest temperature they could easily achieve at the time, it has nothing to do with what humans can and can’t endure.
ech@lemm.ee 6 months ago
You clearly don’t, but I’m not here to argue you out of whatever tunnel your stuck in. Good luck with that.