If Fahrenheit is “how people feel” then why are feet useful measurements of height when 90% of people are between 4ft and 6ft?
Those are two different things. Hope this helps.
Comment on Burning Up
shinratdr@lemmy.ca 3 months ago
For proof that this thread is just people justifying what they know as better somehow, look no further than Canada.
We do cooking temps in Fahrenheit, weather in Celsius. Human weights in pounds, but never pounds and oz. Food weights in grams, cooking weights in pounds and oz. Liquid volume in millilitres and litres, but cooking in cups, teaspoons and tablespoons. Speed & distance in kilometres, heights in feet and inches.
Try and give this any consistency and people will look at you like you’re fucked. The next town is 100km over, I’m 5ft 10in, a can of soda is 355ml, it’s 21c out and I have the oven roasting something at 400f. Tell me it’s 68f out and I will fight you.
People like what they are used to, and will bend over backwards to justify it. This becomes blatantly obvious when you use a random mix of units like we do, because you realize that all that matters is mental scale.
If Fahrenheit is “how people feel” then why are feet useful measurements of height when 90% of people are between 4ft and 6ft? They aren’t. You just know the scale in your head, so when someone says they’re 7ft tall you say “dang that’s tall”. That’s it.
Bongles@lemm.ee 3 months ago
shinratdr@lemmy.ca 3 months ago
It doesn’t help at all, it’s being intentionally obtuse.
Bongles@lemm.ee 3 months ago
If an argument is being made for one thing, Fahrenheit, it’s not relevant to bring up a different thing. Why is feet a good measurement? Maybe it’s not, we’re talking about temperature.
WarlordSdocy@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Yeah like the metric system has good arguments for why it’s measurements and weights are better, mainly conversion being easier, but for temperature there really isn’t an argument. I would make an argument for Fahrenheit as it gives more precision without having to use decimals which at least in America isn’t a thing for temperature. But those are pretty minor things and I do tend to agree it comes down to what you grew up with.
KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 months ago
i still don’t see how this is intentionally obtuse, feet are a mid point between inches and yards, it just makes sense to break down things over a certain amount to a much more palatable scale. Everyone knows roughly what 1 ft is, and everyone knows roughly what 1 inch is. Paired together you can get a pretty rough and accurate guesstimate of height. I feel like it’s also pretty expected for it to be within the range of 4-6 ft. Most people don’t really measure feet outside of that range, unless you’re doing construction.
humans are a comparatively arbitrary height so i feel like you’re just complaining about the height of humans being weirdly arbitrary? Out of all the systems you could use for height, ft and in is pretty well tuned to the human nature, you’re not gonna do much better.
IntheTreetop@lemm.ee 3 months ago
This makes a lot of sense, and why I’d never survive in Canada.
Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 3 months ago
As a Canadian idk why your using us an an example, we are wrong to do so and we blame Americans for giving us this bad habit.
RecluseRamble@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 months ago
I just see it positively and choose to believe you’re in the process of transitioning to enlightenment (metric). ;)
phx@lemmy.ca 3 months ago
Outdoor temperature in °C, unless you’re talking about an outdoor pool then it’s often enough °F :-)
I think part of the reasons it’s so mixed might just be due to how many Amero-centric devices and parts are common between the two countries.
Y’all can take your shitty Phillips screws though. Roberts is by far superior ;-)
ursakhiin@beehaw.org 3 months ago
Imagine weighing people as big rocks, though.
Until the UK changes that, us Americans and Canadians can rest assured that nothing we are doing is quite that ridiculous.
KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 months ago
then why are feet useful measurements of height when 90% of people are between 4ft and 6ft? They aren’t. You just know the scale in your head, so when someone says they’re 7ft tall you say “dang that’s tall”. That’s it.
to be clear, we use feet and inches, and there is historical precedent for breaking things down once they get past a certain grouping, we only have 10 fingers after all. To me the difference between 200cm and 220 is literally fuck all. You ask me the difference between 4 ft and 6ft and i can pretty quickly tell you.
I find it weird that when measuring height in metric, people using cm exclusively, i’ve noticed this a lot actually, people will use cm or mm in places where it arguably doesn’t make any sense. I could see the justification for doing math maybe, but like, that defeats the whole point of it being metric no?
Shouldn’t you be using meters and cm for height specifically? Since most people are a good bit over one meter i feel like it would make sense to do it that way. But then again that’s just kind of a shit bucket worth of options you have, ideally you would use decimeters, but nobody uses those things for some reason.
shinratdr@lemmy.ca 3 months ago
Most of Europe just uses metres for people’s height. 1.67m, like that. I have no mental picture of that, so it doesn’t work for me. But they don’t seem to have any trouble, further evidence that it’s all just what you know.
KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 months ago
hm, that’s weird, i’ve seen this first hand in a handful of cases, guess i just get the weird ones. Granted i still see it holding true in things like construction, where i guess it makes more sense, but it seems weirdly arbitrary to me.
TheKingBombOmbKiller@lemm.ee 3 months ago
I find it weird that when measuring height in metric, people using cm exclusively, i’ve noticed this a lot actually, people will use cm or mm in places where it arguably doesn’t make any sense. I could see the justification for doing math maybe, but like, that defeats the whole point of it being metric no?
Why is that defeating the whole point of being metric? If you know someone is 183 cm tall, you also know that they are 1.83 m tall. If its easier to say the length in cm, you do. No need for “one meter and eighty-three centimeters” or “one point eighty-three meters”, just “a hundred and eighty-three centimeters”. Often you just skip saying the “centimeters” part as well, because most people can see that you’re not the size of a skyscraper without getting a ruler out.
KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 months ago
yeah idk, i guess it’s just weird to me, because here in the us if you measured someones height in inches alone, you would be chased out of a room. We strictly use feet and inches, and then yards if referring to a more “broad” range. So you can very safely assume something is in feet and inches if its just two numbers stuck together.
I feel like i could very easily get confused with metric if i’m not running a consistent rule for default units. Seems like an easy way to get a random x10 error in there to me.
TheKingBombOmbKiller@lemm.ee 3 months ago
As you pointed out previously, nobody uses decimeters, so x10 errors are not that common.
uienia@lemmy.world 3 months ago
To me the difference between 200cm and 220 is literally fuck all. You ask me the difference between 4 ft and 6ft and i can pretty quickly tell you.
To you. But you are aware that this is not the case for people (almost the rest of the world) who are using metric, right?
KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 months ago
To you. But you are aware that this is not the case for people (almost the rest of the world) who are using metric, right?
i mean i would assume so. But i have no direct reference to what 200cm is other than it’s somewhere about 6ft or 2 yards. something like 6’ 5" i think. I would need to know the height of like 50 other people to be able to make a relative distinction there.
SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social 3 months ago
Tell me it’s 68f out and I will fight you.
Note to self: High heat levels make Canadians cranky.
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 3 months ago
Fahrenheit: let’s use “really cold weather” as zero and really hot weather as 100.
Celsius: let’s use “freezing water” as zero, and “boiling water” as 100
Canucks: Image
overcast5348@lemmy.world 3 months ago
I don’t really have a horse in this race but this logic doesn’t seem legit to me.
How is -17°C really cold weather AND 37°C really hot weather?
One is actively trying to kill you if weren’t already dead by the time the weather got that bad. The other just makes your nuts stick to your thighs – if you’re in a humid place.
I’d agree with the logic of 100F was equal to something like 65°C. 🤷♂️
phobiac@lemmy.world 3 months ago
It makes no sense because that’s not what the 0 of the Fahrenheit scale is. The 0 point is the coldest an ammonium chloride brine mixture can be cooled to. The 90 point was an estimated average for human body temperature (it was adjusted up over time). These were chosen because the goal of the scale was to provide a way for people to have a defined temperature scale with a range and degree size that could be reliably reproduced without passing around standardized tools. 100 is really hot because human bodies were used as a reference for the high end, but the low end has nothing to do with the human body.
Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 3 months ago
but like isn’t that the whole point of celsius? all you need to calibrate a C thermometer is some water: when it starts freezing it’s 0°C and when it’s boiling it’s 100°C, super simple and accessible.
It’s not like “the estimated average human body temperature” is particularly accurate, and surely no matter what you mix into water it won’t magically boil at the same temperature regardless of air pressure?
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 3 months ago
Geometric construction plays a role in there as well: the 180 degrees between the boiling point and the freezing point of water was not accidental.
psud@aussie.zone 3 months ago
At what molar concentration? Was it just as much NH4Cl as he could dissolve at ambient temperature and pressure?
KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 months ago
0f is pretty fucking cold outside, your nose hairs start to freeze in this weather. It’s genuinely uncomfortable and you can die pretty easily if you aren’t prepared for it. 100f is similar, anything over 100f and you start to get into straight heat exhaustion and potential heat stroke region of danger. it’s really not that bad? Sure if you’re like, standing outside doing nothing in the shade, you’ll be fine, but do some labor and you might meet the fabled heat exhaustion fairy.
Obviously, when you convert it to celsius, it seems really fucking weird, That’s pretty normal for conversions though. Like just to be clear, if you round these numbers, they make more sense. -20 c and “damn it’s really cold out” you round up to 40c and “damn it’s really hot out”
also im not really sure what you’re trying to say, but 0f isn’t like, going to kill you kill you, it’s not pleasant, but in the right attire you’ll be fine. -20 f and you start getting closer, -40f and you really start having to think about it. Are you aussie or something? This scale seems really shifted up to me. “nuts sticking weather” is like 80f and humid here.
overcast5348@lemmy.world 3 months ago
I’m saying that 0F is waaaaaaay more dangerous than 100F so the logic of those particular temperatures being the 0-100 ends of the scale can’t be explained by how dangerous they each are.
Almost everyone would be fine staying outside for 30 minutes at 100F without no external help (shade, cool drinks etc). Almost nobody would be fine after staying outside at 0F without external help (parka, thermals etc).
To me, with absolutely no data, it feels lie:
So calling 0F and 100F both “really dangerous” and using that to justify them being the respective points of 0 and 100 disingenuous. Like, use Fahrenheit if that’s what you’re used to - I use it too because that’s what I’m used to. But I don’t explain the insane system with “it’s because the two ends are reallllly dangerous.”
C126@sh.itjust.works 3 months ago
Thank you. That argument bugs the heck out of me.
KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 months ago
maybe it’s a climate thing? Where do you live, here in ameica it’s quite literally the best way to describe it. We see swings below 0f at the coldest parts of the year, and upwards of 100+ in the hottest parts of the year.
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 3 months ago
Every time a heat wave brings 100F, the news starts reporting about old people dying. Every time the temperatures reach zero, same thing.
Personally, I can handle the cold much easier than the heat. I get stupid-brain working more than 30 minutes at 95F. Another 15 minutes and I can’t catch my breath, lose fine motor control, and start feeling faint. Drenching myself in water - the colder the better - every 20 minutes or so is the only way I’ve found to be productive above 100F. I feel like 100F is actively trying to kill me.
0F is where it starts getting difficult for me to stay warm without an additional heat source.
overcast5348@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Lmao are you a penguin or something? Please tell me that you’re exaggerating to make a point and aren’t seriously saying that you’re capable of staying warm at -10°C (14°F) “without an additional heat source.”
Etterra@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Celsius is for scientists and nerds, Fahrenheit is for normal idiots. It’s not rocket surgery.