The temperature measurement is true though. F describes the temperature scale that humans interact with much better than C does.
Kind of, but not really. 0F doesn’t mean anything special in relation to human interaction, it relates to the freezing point of some random salt and water mixture (not seawater). 32 is a random number for the freezing point of freshwater which humans do care about, and 212 is nonsense for boiling temp of water which humans also care about and routinely use. The only part pertinent is that 100 is close to, but higher than human body temperature, but not quite where it counts as a fever… just the temperature of a sub-feverish human… how is that helpful! Sorry I really don’t care for the Fahrenheit system and I’m prepared to die on this hill
0 F is really cold to a human (but still livable), and 100 F is really hot to a human (but still livable). I honestly don't really care what temperature water boils at in my every day life. I know that if I put fire under a pot of water, it will boil eventually. Why would I need to know the exact temperature?
Cooking
Do you add pasta when the water is boiling or do you add pasta when it's 100°C? Because right now the boilng point of water for my location is 95.23°C. If I were to go skiing and wanted to boil some instant Ramen does it matter that the boiling point is 90.04°C in Leadville, CO? Or do I just put some water on the stove and wait till it boils?
Coffee brewing, if I used boiling water my coffee would taste "burnt", but if I use 80°C or so of hot water, it tastes perfect.
huh. I use an expensive coffee maker precisely because it heats just shy of boiling, 202 degrees/like 94c, and it turns out way better coffee than the 85 ish degree machines.
Depends on your coffee, brewing method, etc
For coffee machines the temperature doesn't matter as much, but for pour over, and some other filter coffee methods it can be important to measure water temperature.
It absolutely matters, it's why I paid so much. Walmart was selling a 50 dollar machine did the same thing, but the machines broke inside of 2 weeks. It made such good coffee I just returned it over and over till the customer service lady told me (she knew my name at this point) they'd returned what was left of the pallet. 300 dollar Zojirusha does the same thing and its a few years old now. Tried a few machines in between, just made mud it felt like, I've been ruined for crappy coffee tolerance.
Fair enough, there actually are a lot of terrible coffee machines available, especially in the US I guess. I am much more limited in what I can get, and so I end up having to do a lot more research (I do mean months of research), especially as the culture here is different for purchasing and returning things.
I'm not American, did some research, ordered it off Amazon.
You mentioned Walmart, so I assumed that, sorry.
Explain how it's useful in cooking. Considering it doesn't actually boil at 100 degrees unless there's very specific environmental conditions
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.
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.
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?
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
0 F is really cold to a human (but still livable), and 100 F is really hot to a human (but still livable)
Oh wow two numbers with a really fuzzy meaning, how convenient
I honestly don’t really care what temperature water boils at in my every day life
How about freezing? Super useful info in places that have snow and ice
32 is a random number for the freezing point of freshwater which humans do care about, and 212 is nonsense for boiling temp of water which humans also care about and routinely use.
Humans care about the fact that water boils or freezes. Not the temperature at which it happens
Sorry I really don’t care for the Fahrenheit system and I’m prepared to die on this hill
I'm prepared to die on the Farenheit system is better for describing environmental temperature hill
Friend, what in Sam Hill are you on about? Celsius is obviously better for boiling water: It takes a lot more degrees to reach 212 than it does 100, so I get my ramen a lot sooner when boiling water in Celsius!
::: spoiler since text loses the emotional content of speech
this is a joke
:::
No no, this guy's got a point!
Humans care about the fact that water boils or freezes. Not the temperature at which it happens
What? Humans care a whole lot about the temperature at which both those things happen.
When I go outside in the morning, I know if road conditions are dangerous based on the freezing point of temperature.
When I cook something, the boiling point of water is something I can easily recognise just by looking, which allows me to use temperatures around and below it for many purposes.
What? Humans care a whole lot about the temperature at which both those things happen.
Explain how
When I go outside in the morning, I know if road conditions are dangerous based on the freezing point of temperature.
You're getting a false sense of security. Do you think -1C = dangerous and 1C = safe or something?
When I cook something, the boiling point of water is something I can easily recognise just by looking, which allows me to use temperatures around and below it for many purposes.
Wtf? Explain how
Explain how
You mean the way I did in the parts you quoted after writing this?
You're getting a false sense of security. Do you think -1C = dangerous and 1C = safe or something?
No? Did I write that? I know the freezing point of water, so I know when I have to be careful. That's not strictly at the freezing point of water, but it is around that.
Wtf? Explain how
You should try to write actual questions, because I'm not sure what you're confused about. Say I want to water around 80-90°C - I heat water to boiling and then wait a bit. What's so difficult?
212 and 100 are both equally random numbers. There's nothing special about either. Besides, water boils about 205/95 on my hill.
No, 212 and 100 are not equally random. Unless you're trying to say that literally all numbers are equally random, 100 in the decimal system is much less random that 212.
Assigning the number 100 to the temperature pure water boils at sea level under specific conditions is as random as it gets. At least Farenheit numbers were based on a chemical concoction that exhibits the same temperature output regardless of elevation or pressure that they used to calibrate.
Assigning the number 100 to the temperature pure water boils at sea level under specific conditions is as random as it gets.
No, it's literally not. 212 is much more random. Any number like 10, 100, 1000 etc. is less random than any other number, simply by virtue of our decimal system. Just like 2,4, 8 etc. are less random in a binary system.
This isn't kilometers, area, volume, distant measurement. It's temperature. What that 100 is based on is random as fuck, and having the temperature of one elements boiling point at sea level divisible by 10 doesn't really help anything. There is a 100 degree point in Farenhenheit too, you could simply use that for...well whatever reason you need ten to go in evenly.
My guy, I'm not arguing whether the boiling temperature of water is a random point (because it isn't random in any way, and I'm not interested in arguing that). I'm arguing one simple thing: assigning something on a scale to 100 is much less random than assigning it to 212.
I don't think you have a very clear grasp on what random means, and 212 wasn't assigned.
You have no understanding of randomness if you think that 100 is equally random as 212 in our decimal system. No, not every number is equally random, no matter how often you repeat it.
I understand you have a fetish for numbers that are multiples of ten, but that doesn't make them special. Picking a number out of a hat is as likely to be a 9 as a 100.
Acknowledging that powers of a number systems base are special in that system isn't something I ever thought people would disagree with.
Why do you think we have concepts like "percentages"?
Because you people have ten fingers and use them to count.
F describes the temperature scale that humans interact with much better than C does.
Only because you grew up with it.
I have only had the temperature described to me in celcius so Fahrenhite makes no sense to me.
I have only had the temperature described to me in celcius so Fahrenhite makes no sense to me.
What doesn't make sense to you. You can think of F as a percentage of how hot it is. 0 is 0% hot, meaning cold as fuck. 100 is 100% hot, hot as fuck. Things in the middle are are in the middle. 85 is 85% hot.
So 50 F is the ideal temperature?
Why do you just assume 50% is the ideal?
If 0 F is 0 % hot, and 100 F is 100 % hot; shouldn't 50 F be the Goldilocks ideal of neither too hot or too cold at 50 %?
And if 50 F isn't the Goldilocks ideal, then where on the scale is it?
That would depend on personal preference. Somewhere around the 70-80 mark most likely.
You're assuming humans have no preference for it being hot or cold. That's the only way 50% would make more sense. But most people prefer it warm
My assumption was that a temperature scale for the human experience would place the ideal temperature around the middle, and not towards too hot. Would it improve such a scale if the 0 F was closer where 20 or 30 is currently, so that 70-80 is more centered? Is 0 F the perfect point for where it's unacceptably cold for a human, or could it have been shifted up or down the scale?
And -5 farenheit is.. just a bit colder than fuck? I understand what temperatures I start feeling cold perfectly well in Celsius, I know roughly when I'll need a jacket, when I'll need a hat and scarf... Farenheit tells me nothing because I don't know about it. Sure, 0 is very cold, but where is "cold enough to wear a jacket"? It's most likely never going to reach 0°F where I live, and it won't reach 100°F outside of very rare summer days... Beyond those extremes it's not useful to me because I don't know it.
Sure, 0 is very cold, but where is “cold enough to wear a jacket”?
This is going to vary depending on everyone. I start wearing a jacket at around 60. My wife starts at like 75. So neither system is going to be able to tell you that information
Checks temp converter
Lol. 80F is approximately 26C. That's considered mild where I live.
So yeah. Makes fuckall sense to people who've grown up with temperature mentioned in Celcius everywhere.
How does this refute anything in my comment? 80% is fairly "mild". When 100% i "as hot as it can be", and 0 is "as cold as it can be", 80% is a pretty good temperature.
5/7 comment
Lol can't tell, is this 85% stupid or closer to 100?
Are percentages too hard for you?
Not nearly as hard as you are working to represent F in chat about personal preference
I WILL die on this hill. But preference is just what you do with the information, not the usefulness of the scale. 0-100 is the scale. Whether you wear jackets at 50-60 or 60-70 doesn't mean that the scale isn't objectively better.
Oh yea I think I do agree with you that the C scale is objectively better.
Cope harder. F is objectively better for environment. C is objectively better for scientific calculation
Oof you really trying to get others to die on that hill with ya huh?
You're objectively dumb
What about 102? Or 3000 (for metals)?
102%, aka hot as fuck. The whole point is that it describes human environmental temperature. If you're dealing with melting metals, that's a scientific application and C would be the better choice
The fever temperature, maybe. But the rest makes more sense in C. It's so much easier when 0C is freezing and 100C is boiling. It works with cooking. Counting in increments of 5 or 10 also works for weather.
<0C = below freezing
0-10C = cold
10-20C = cool (sweater or hoodie)
20-30C = t-shirt weather
30C and above = hot
It’s so much easier when 0C is freezing and 100C is boiling. It works with cooking.
Explain how this is useful in cooking
20-30C = t-shirt weather
68 to 86 is a GIGANTIC difference. 68 is cold for many many people, certainly not "t-shirt weather". and 86 is hot, much more than "t-shirt weather".
Who bundles up in 68F? It's literally room temperature
Also it's useful in cooking because it's an actual, useful scale. You know when it's 90C it's about to be boiling, just makes no sense why you gotta memorize 212F. Random number and all
Never said "bundling up". But that 10 degree range is so big as to be useless. 68 is not in the same category as 86.
You know when it’s 90C it’s about to be boiling, just makes no sense why you gotta memorize 212F.
What? How often are you putting thermometers in whatever it is you're boiling? You just heat it until it boils. It doesn't matter what the number is.
Thank you for making sense lol. Who's putting a meat thermometer in water to make sure it's boiling? It's boiling when it's boiling.
people actually use boiling water to calibrate their meat thermometers, but they always forget to check their elevation. boiling point here is 205 degrees, and 7 degrees matters when say chicken is safe at 160 but you actually pulled it off at 155
100 is absolutely a random number, just fetishized.
i dunno, 68F on a cloudy windy day isn't as pleasant as 68F and sunny.
But then again I'm from Ohio and I won't bother to put on so much as a vest until it hits 50s
68f is for sure t-shirt weather. 86f is for sure T-shirt weather.
Who TF bundles up if it's 86 deg.
Super confused, you bundle up at 68f for normal ideal summer temps? Or is 68-86 Gigantic enough you need long sleeves? Or like just low keyed afraid are you of the outdoors at 20c? Spoiler alert... It's nice?
68f is for sure t-shirt weather.
68 is not t-shirt weather for a lot of people.
What is this about "bundling up"? Literally no one said anything about bundling up. But 68 and 86 are just fundamentally different temperature categories.
you bundle up at 68f for normal ideal summer temps? Or is 68-86 Gigantic enough you need long sleeves?
68 means you may or may not need a jacket, depending on the wind, fog, etc. It also means you should probably carry a jacket because it's likely to drop down below "t-shirt" weather when the sun goes down. 86 means you'll likely not need a jacket at all, even at night. And it means the wind will be refreshing rather than biting. And it might mean shorts as well.
Like, I just don't believe that you can't understand how 68 and 86 are fundamentally different temperature categories
68 is shorts and T-shirt weather in my part of the world. No one carries a jacket around if it's that warm. Maybe it's cold to you if you live between the tropics? I can't speak to that
20-30c is a cool shortcut that F doesn't really have. The original comment is just a decent guideline and "I just don't believe that you can't understand" what a guideline is.
But if you need all this stuff to exist outside in nice weather maybe a quick guideline is not for you...
20-30c is a cool shortcut that F doesn’t really have.
What kind of shortcut? 68-80 are so massively different. Even if 68 is shorts and t-shirt for you, that means 86 is "uncomfortably hot". And even if 68 is t-shirt weather, it means at night it's going to drop probalby 10 degrees. So 68 is "tshirt weather right now, but bring a jacket", and 86 is "tshirt weather but leave the jacket at home". and the 10 degree bands of F are perfect for that. 60s is "cool, may or may not require a jacket depending on your preference". 70s is "nice right now but prepare for cool when the sun goes down", 80s is "warm, don't bring a jacket", etc.
So sure, we don't have the "20-30c" shortcut (again, way too big to be useful). We have EVERY 10 degree band as a shortcut
68-80 are similar temps. I'm comfy at both. I wear the same thing outdoors at both temps.
I'm sorry you don't I guess and are offended that someone else is different than you.
20-30 is easier to understand than 68-80 for most people (obviously there's an exception)
Yes, 68 to 80 are somewhat similar. I obviously meant 68-86.
But 68-80 IS similar, and it's exactly why F is better, because we have the 70-80 band. But that's exactly the point, 68 and 86 are NOT similar temps, hence being in separate 80-90 band.
Yes obviously.
If you read the discussion that you were actually having to me, we were obviously talking about 20-30c, which is 68-86F. And it was mentioned several times in this thread. And the context of my reply made it abundantly clear I meant 68-86
Yes I mistyped 80vs86. but that percentage of 100 is similar enough that I can't really tell the difference.
I was agreeing that 68 and 86 are both T-shirt weather. Still is to most folks. I get it you're not most folks.
I'm imagining your place as just filled with coats and thermometers that you care about this to such an extent.
Yes I mistyped 80vs86.
Oh, thought you were being sarcastic.
But are you seriously saying you can't tell the difference between 68 and 86? That's absolutely absurd
I’m imagining your place as just filled with coats
Yes I live in San Francisco, I have several coats.
This is a funny argument I see from Yanks all the time.
Someone teach these Yanks about negative numbers, please!
What do negative numbers have to do with anything? -1F = cold as fuck
. F describes the temperature scale that humans interact with much better than C does.
Usually this silly argument is about 0-100 thing. But Yanks don't seem to understand that you can do negative numbers, you don't have to be within 0-100 range.
Yes, negative numbers exist, and numbers beyond 100. But they're not that important. 0 is basically the lowest temperature that matters in day to day life. If it's colder, you don't do anything different unless you're preparing for an outdoor adventure. Same with 100. 100 is the hottest temperature that makes a difference. Beyond 100 it only matters if you're preparing for an outdoor adventure. The 100 degree scale is about describing the normal range that humans interact with their environment in. Even if it can get extreme beyond that, that doesn't mean the 0-100 scale isn't useful.
Yes, negative numbers exist, and numbers beyond 100. But they’re not that important.
They kinda are though lol.
The 100 degree scale is about describing the normal range that humans interact with their environment in
But what about sauna. What about really cold weather. What about cooking. Hell, what about my PC. What about when I have a fever. What about really hot weather... The temperatures are about much more than the fuzzy idea about normal-ish weather in certain places on earth.
Even if it can get extreme beyond that, that doesn’t mean the 0-100 scale isn’t useful.
It just means it doesn't have much benefit to it at all. The whole argument for it is silly.
Ps I'm starting think Fal is losing it in this comment section...
They've started a holy war to preach the benefit of staying between 0-100. I admire their conviction, even if I think their argument is nonsense.
Ehhhh conviction isn't super admirable if it's something stupid.
I don't think a flat earther's conviction is admirable.
But at least theyre less stupid than flat earthers... So far...
It's admirable in the "I love internet drama" sense. I love it when people feel super strongly about something that doesn't matter.
Oh I gotcha now, agreed
They kinda are though lol.
Not really. Explain what you do differently in -10F temperatures that you wouldn't do in 0F temperatures in normal life. I don't want to hear about how you would choose a different sleeping bag or prepare your snow shoes differently or some shit. When your day consists of commuting to work, going to the grocery store, then going home, what meaningful difference do any values below 0F have.
But what about sauna.
What about it?
What about really cold weather.
What about it?
What about cooking.
What about it?
Hell, what about my PC.
What about it?
What about when I have a fever
This is actually the perfect example. Above 100 is a fever. Below is fine
What about really hot weather
What about it?
The temperatures are about much more than the fuzzy idea about normal-ish weather in certain places on earth.
Not in 99% of how people use the temperature.
And your examples of cooking and your PC are not what we're talking about. We're talking about human environmental temperature. But in fact, cooking is another good use for F. You generally only care about a few specific temps. 350F and 400F. Anything else is nuance but basically only matter on the 25 degree marks. So 375, 425. It's actually a pretty great scale for cooking, with broiling generally maxing out at 500 (unless you're talking very specific application, like pizza ovens or some shit)
Yes, negative numbers exist, and numbers beyond 100. But they’re not that important.
The 100 degree scale is about describing the normal range that humans interact with their environment in
"Well what about all these things outside of this range people use in their daily life?"
What about it?
LOL
And your examples of cooking and your PC are not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about human environmental temperature.
I'm making the case that your "human environmental temperature" is a shit reason to pick Fahrenheit because we have all these things that surprisingly don't conform to it. So you'll have to go outside the 0-100 range anyway. So you won't get any "benefit" from it, even when the "benefit" was dubious to begin with.
But in fact, cooking is another good use for F. You generally only care about a few specific temps. 350F and 400F. Anything else is nuance but basically only matter on the 25 degree marks. So 375, 425. It’s actually a pretty great scale for cooking, with broiling generally maxing out at 500 (unless you’re talking very specific application, like pizza ovens or some shit)
Wait till you see international ovens and cooking manuals. It's gonna blow your mind.
Wait til you learn that there are other things to do in life than bitch about temperature systems.
This would probably be more impactful if you didn't just jump into a discussion that didn't involve you to make this observation lol
I like how you respond to somebody saying you're bitching by bitching more. Continue crying about it by yourself, please.
You replied to me, unprompted. Can't go complaining I replied after that, that'd be silly
I’m making the case that your “human environmental temperature” is a shit reason to pick Fahrenheit because we have all these things that surprisingly don’t conform to it. So you’ll have to go outside the 0-100 range anyway. So you won’t get any “benefit” from it, even when the “benefit” was dubious to begin with.
It's better to pick the scale that does conform to it for the vast majority of applications, and then just deal with the others. Either by using C or just dealing with it. For every 1 time you need to deal with temps of your computer, you'll interact with the environmental temperature a thousand times. And neither C or F are inherently better for describing CPU temps.
Wait till you see international ovens and cooking manuals. It’s gonna blow your mind.
Oh, I forgot to pull out my cooking manual. Yeah C is MUCH better.
Okay we can all go home. Fal says "C is MUCH better." Argument over
Fal has released us poor souls from this torment. Blessed be.
It’s better to pick the scale that does conform to it for the vast majority of applications, and then just deal with the others. Either by using C or just dealing with it. For every 1 time you need to deal with temps of your computer, you’ll interact with the environmental temperature a thousand times. And neither C or F are inherently better for describing CPU temps.
I mean neither conforms very well, that's the whole point. And what's the deal with 0-100, why is that so beneficial in your opinion?
And neither C or F are inherently better for describing CPU temps.
Well yeah, it was simply about the 0-100 thing.
Oh, I forgot to pull out my cooking manual. Yeah C is MUCH better.
Wait till you see the ovens. It's incredible. There's usually few temps you need to care about and it changes in 20 degree marks. Incredible, I know.
You forgot to consider that people interact with ovens and freezers
Explain how interacting with ovens and freezers requires knowledge of the specific temperature at which water freezes or boils at standard conditions
Rubbish. The rest of the world understands temperatures in Celsius perfectly well. You're confusing familiarity with superiority
The temperature measurement is true though. F describes the temperature scale that humans interact with much better than C does.
Kind of, but not really. 0F doesn’t mean anything special in relation to human interaction, it relates to the freezing point of some random salt and water mixture (not seawater). 32 is a random number for the freezing point of freshwater which humans do care about, and 212 is nonsense for boiling temp of water which humans also care about and routinely use. The only part pertinent is that 100 is close to, but higher than human body temperature, but not quite where it counts as a fever… just the temperature of a sub-feverish human… how is that helpful! Sorry I really don’t care for the Fahrenheit system and I’m prepared to die on this hill
0 F is really cold to a human (but still livable), and 100 F is really hot to a human (but still livable). I honestly don't really care what temperature water boils at in my every day life. I know that if I put fire under a pot of water, it will boil eventually. Why would I need to know the exact temperature?
Cooking
Do you add pasta when the water is boiling or do you add pasta when it's 100°C? Because right now the boilng point of water for my location is 95.23°C. If I were to go skiing and wanted to boil some instant Ramen does it matter that the boiling point is 90.04°C in Leadville, CO? Or do I just put some water on the stove and wait till it boils?
Coffee brewing, if I used boiling water my coffee would taste "burnt", but if I use 80°C or so of hot water, it tastes perfect.
huh. I use an expensive coffee maker precisely because it heats just shy of boiling, 202 degrees/like 94c, and it turns out way better coffee than the 85 ish degree machines.
Depends on your coffee, brewing method, etc
For coffee machines the temperature doesn't matter as much, but for pour over, and some other filter coffee methods it can be important to measure water temperature.
It absolutely matters, it's why I paid so much. Walmart was selling a 50 dollar machine did the same thing, but the machines broke inside of 2 weeks. It made such good coffee I just returned it over and over till the customer service lady told me (she knew my name at this point) they'd returned what was left of the pallet. 300 dollar Zojirusha does the same thing and its a few years old now. Tried a few machines in between, just made mud it felt like, I've been ruined for crappy coffee tolerance.
Fair enough, there actually are a lot of terrible coffee machines available, especially in the US I guess. I am much more limited in what I can get, and so I end up having to do a lot more research (I do mean months of research), especially as the culture here is different for purchasing and returning things.
I'm not American, did some research, ordered it off Amazon.
You mentioned Walmart, so I assumed that, sorry.
Explain how it's useful in cooking. Considering it doesn't actually boil at 100 degrees unless there's very specific environmental conditions
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
Oh wow two numbers with a really fuzzy meaning, how convenient
How about freezing? Super useful info in places that have snow and ice
Humans care about the fact that water boils or freezes. Not the temperature at which it happens
I'm prepared to die on the Farenheit system is better for describing environmental temperature hill
Friend, what in Sam Hill are you on about? Celsius is obviously better for boiling water: It takes a lot more degrees to reach 212 than it does 100, so I get my ramen a lot sooner when boiling water in Celsius!
::: spoiler since text loses the emotional content of speech this is a joke :::
No no, this guy's got a point!
What? Humans care a whole lot about the temperature at which both those things happen.
When I go outside in the morning, I know if road conditions are dangerous based on the freezing point of temperature.
When I cook something, the boiling point of water is something I can easily recognise just by looking, which allows me to use temperatures around and below it for many purposes.
Explain how
You're getting a false sense of security. Do you think -1C = dangerous and 1C = safe or something?
Wtf? Explain how
You mean the way I did in the parts you quoted after writing this?
No? Did I write that? I know the freezing point of water, so I know when I have to be careful. That's not strictly at the freezing point of water, but it is around that.
You should try to write actual questions, because I'm not sure what you're confused about. Say I want to water around 80-90°C - I heat water to boiling and then wait a bit. What's so difficult?
212 and 100 are both equally random numbers. There's nothing special about either. Besides, water boils about 205/95 on my hill.
No, 212 and 100 are not equally random. Unless you're trying to say that literally all numbers are equally random, 100 in the decimal system is much less random that 212.
Assigning the number 100 to the temperature pure water boils at sea level under specific conditions is as random as it gets. At least Farenheit numbers were based on a chemical concoction that exhibits the same temperature output regardless of elevation or pressure that they used to calibrate.
No, it's literally not. 212 is much more random. Any number like 10, 100, 1000 etc. is less random than any other number, simply by virtue of our decimal system. Just like 2,4, 8 etc. are less random in a binary system.
This isn't kilometers, area, volume, distant measurement. It's temperature. What that 100 is based on is random as fuck, and having the temperature of one elements boiling point at sea level divisible by 10 doesn't really help anything. There is a 100 degree point in Farenhenheit too, you could simply use that for...well whatever reason you need ten to go in evenly.
My guy, I'm not arguing whether the boiling temperature of water is a random point (because it isn't random in any way, and I'm not interested in arguing that). I'm arguing one simple thing: assigning something on a scale to 100 is much less random than assigning it to 212.
I don't think you have a very clear grasp on what random means, and 212 wasn't assigned.
You have no understanding of randomness if you think that 100 is equally random as 212 in our decimal system. No, not every number is equally random, no matter how often you repeat it.
I understand you have a fetish for numbers that are multiples of ten, but that doesn't make them special. Picking a number out of a hat is as likely to be a 9 as a 100.
Acknowledging that powers of a number systems base are special in that system isn't something I ever thought people would disagree with.
Why do you think we have concepts like "percentages"?
Because you people have ten fingers and use them to count.
Only because you grew up with it.
I have only had the temperature described to me in celcius so Fahrenhite makes no sense to me.
What doesn't make sense to you. You can think of F as a percentage of how hot it is. 0 is 0% hot, meaning cold as fuck. 100 is 100% hot, hot as fuck. Things in the middle are are in the middle. 85 is 85% hot.
So 50 F is the ideal temperature?
Why do you just assume 50% is the ideal?
If 0 F is 0 % hot, and 100 F is 100 % hot; shouldn't 50 F be the Goldilocks ideal of neither too hot or too cold at 50 %?
And if 50 F isn't the Goldilocks ideal, then where on the scale is it?
That would depend on personal preference. Somewhere around the 70-80 mark most likely.
You're assuming humans have no preference for it being hot or cold. That's the only way 50% would make more sense. But most people prefer it warm
My assumption was that a temperature scale for the human experience would place the ideal temperature around the middle, and not towards too hot. Would it improve such a scale if the 0 F was closer where 20 or 30 is currently, so that 70-80 is more centered? Is 0 F the perfect point for where it's unacceptably cold for a human, or could it have been shifted up or down the scale?
And -5 farenheit is.. just a bit colder than fuck? I understand what temperatures I start feeling cold perfectly well in Celsius, I know roughly when I'll need a jacket, when I'll need a hat and scarf... Farenheit tells me nothing because I don't know about it. Sure, 0 is very cold, but where is "cold enough to wear a jacket"? It's most likely never going to reach 0°F where I live, and it won't reach 100°F outside of very rare summer days... Beyond those extremes it's not useful to me because I don't know it.
This is going to vary depending on everyone. I start wearing a jacket at around 60. My wife starts at like 75. So neither system is going to be able to tell you that information
Checks temp converter
Lol. 80F is approximately 26C. That's considered mild where I live.
So yeah. Makes fuckall sense to people who've grown up with temperature mentioned in Celcius everywhere.
How does this refute anything in my comment? 80% is fairly "mild". When 100% i "as hot as it can be", and 0 is "as cold as it can be", 80% is a pretty good temperature.
5/7 comment
Lol can't tell, is this 85% stupid or closer to 100?
Are percentages too hard for you?
Not nearly as hard as you are working to represent F in chat about personal preference
I WILL die on this hill. But preference is just what you do with the information, not the usefulness of the scale. 0-100 is the scale. Whether you wear jackets at 50-60 or 60-70 doesn't mean that the scale isn't objectively better.
Oh yea I think I do agree with you that the C scale is objectively better.
Cope harder. F is objectively better for environment. C is objectively better for scientific calculation
Oof you really trying to get others to die on that hill with ya huh?
You're objectively dumb
What about 102? Or 3000 (for metals)?
102%, aka hot as fuck. The whole point is that it describes human environmental temperature. If you're dealing with melting metals, that's a scientific application and C would be the better choice
The fever temperature, maybe. But the rest makes more sense in C. It's so much easier when 0C is freezing and 100C is boiling. It works with cooking. Counting in increments of 5 or 10 also works for weather.
<0C = below freezing
0-10C = cold
10-20C = cool (sweater or hoodie)
20-30C = t-shirt weather
30C and above = hot
Explain how this is useful in cooking
68 to 86 is a GIGANTIC difference. 68 is cold for many many people, certainly not "t-shirt weather". and 86 is hot, much more than "t-shirt weather".
Who bundles up in 68F? It's literally room temperature
Also it's useful in cooking because it's an actual, useful scale. You know when it's 90C it's about to be boiling, just makes no sense why you gotta memorize 212F. Random number and all
Never said "bundling up". But that 10 degree range is so big as to be useless. 68 is not in the same category as 86.
What? How often are you putting thermometers in whatever it is you're boiling? You just heat it until it boils. It doesn't matter what the number is.
Thank you for making sense lol. Who's putting a meat thermometer in water to make sure it's boiling? It's boiling when it's boiling.
people actually use boiling water to calibrate their meat thermometers, but they always forget to check their elevation. boiling point here is 205 degrees, and 7 degrees matters when say chicken is safe at 160 but you actually pulled it off at 155
100 is absolutely a random number, just fetishized.
i dunno, 68F on a cloudy windy day isn't as pleasant as 68F and sunny.
But then again I'm from Ohio and I won't bother to put on so much as a vest until it hits 50s
68f is for sure t-shirt weather. 86f is for sure T-shirt weather.
Who TF bundles up if it's 86 deg.
Super confused, you bundle up at 68f for normal ideal summer temps? Or is 68-86 Gigantic enough you need long sleeves? Or like just low keyed afraid are you of the outdoors at 20c? Spoiler alert... It's nice?
68 is not t-shirt weather for a lot of people.
What is this about "bundling up"? Literally no one said anything about bundling up. But 68 and 86 are just fundamentally different temperature categories.
68 means you may or may not need a jacket, depending on the wind, fog, etc. It also means you should probably carry a jacket because it's likely to drop down below "t-shirt" weather when the sun goes down. 86 means you'll likely not need a jacket at all, even at night. And it means the wind will be refreshing rather than biting. And it might mean shorts as well.
Like, I just don't believe that you can't understand how 68 and 86 are fundamentally different temperature categories
68 is shorts and T-shirt weather in my part of the world. No one carries a jacket around if it's that warm. Maybe it's cold to you if you live between the tropics? I can't speak to that
20-30c is a cool shortcut that F doesn't really have. The original comment is just a decent guideline and "I just don't believe that you can't understand" what a guideline is.
But if you need all this stuff to exist outside in nice weather maybe a quick guideline is not for you...
What kind of shortcut? 68-80 are so massively different. Even if 68 is shorts and t-shirt for you, that means 86 is "uncomfortably hot". And even if 68 is t-shirt weather, it means at night it's going to drop probalby 10 degrees. So 68 is "tshirt weather right now, but bring a jacket", and 86 is "tshirt weather but leave the jacket at home". and the 10 degree bands of F are perfect for that.
60sis "cool, may or may not require a jacket depending on your preference". 70s is "nice right now but prepare for cool when the sun goes down", 80s is "warm, don't bring a jacket", etc.So sure, we don't have the "20-30c" shortcut (again, way too big to be useful). We have EVERY 10 degree band as a shortcut
68-80 are similar temps. I'm comfy at both. I wear the same thing outdoors at both temps.
I'm sorry you don't I guess and are offended that someone else is different than you.
20-30 is easier to understand than 68-80 for most people (obviously there's an exception)
Yes, 68 to 80 are somewhat similar. I obviously meant 68-86.
But 68-80 IS similar, and it's exactly why F is better, because we have the 70-80 band. But that's exactly the point, 68 and 86 are NOT similar temps, hence being in separate 80-90 band.
Yes obviously.
If you read the discussion that you were actually having to me, we were obviously talking about 20-30c, which is 68-86F. And it was mentioned several times in this thread. And the context of my reply made it abundantly clear I meant 68-86
Yes I mistyped 80vs86. but that percentage of 100 is similar enough that I can't really tell the difference.
I was agreeing that 68 and 86 are both T-shirt weather. Still is to most folks. I get it you're not most folks.
I'm imagining your place as just filled with coats and thermometers that you care about this to such an extent.
Oh, thought you were being sarcastic.
But are you seriously saying you can't tell the difference between 68 and 86? That's absolutely absurd
Yes I live in San Francisco, I have several coats.
My thermostat and my phone. So "full"
i literally set my thermostat at 69 because its t shirt warm.
This is a funny argument I see from Yanks all the time.
Someone teach these Yanks about negative numbers, please!
What do negative numbers have to do with anything? -1F = cold as fuck
Usually this silly argument is about 0-100 thing. But Yanks don't seem to understand that you can do negative numbers, you don't have to be within 0-100 range.
Yes, negative numbers exist, and numbers beyond 100. But they're not that important. 0 is basically the lowest temperature that matters in day to day life. If it's colder, you don't do anything different unless you're preparing for an outdoor adventure. Same with 100. 100 is the hottest temperature that makes a difference. Beyond 100 it only matters if you're preparing for an outdoor adventure. The 100 degree scale is about describing the normal range that humans interact with their environment in. Even if it can get extreme beyond that, that doesn't mean the 0-100 scale isn't useful.
They kinda are though lol.
But what about sauna. What about really cold weather. What about cooking. Hell, what about my PC. What about when I have a fever. What about really hot weather... The temperatures are about much more than the fuzzy idea about normal-ish weather in certain places on earth.
It just means it doesn't have much benefit to it at all. The whole argument for it is silly.
Ps I'm starting think Fal is losing it in this comment section...
They've started a holy war to preach the benefit of staying between 0-100. I admire their conviction, even if I think their argument is nonsense.
Ehhhh conviction isn't super admirable if it's something stupid.
I don't think a flat earther's conviction is admirable.
But at least theyre less stupid than flat earthers... So far...
It's admirable in the "I love internet drama" sense. I love it when people feel super strongly about something that doesn't matter.
Oh I gotcha now, agreed
Not really. Explain what you do differently in -10F temperatures that you wouldn't do in 0F temperatures in normal life. I don't want to hear about how you would choose a different sleeping bag or prepare your snow shoes differently or some shit. When your day consists of commuting to work, going to the grocery store, then going home, what meaningful difference do any values below 0F have.
What about it?
What about it?
What about it?
This is actually the perfect example. Above 100 is a fever. Below is fine
What about it?
Not in 99% of how people use the temperature.
And your examples of cooking and your PC are not what we're talking about. We're talking about human environmental temperature. But in fact, cooking is another good use for F. You generally only care about a few specific temps. 350F and 400F. Anything else is nuance but basically only matter on the 25 degree marks. So 375, 425. It's actually a pretty great scale for cooking, with broiling generally maxing out at 500 (unless you're talking very specific application, like pizza ovens or some shit)
"Well what about all these things outside of this range people use in their daily life?"
LOL
I'm making the case that your "human environmental temperature" is a shit reason to pick Fahrenheit because we have all these things that surprisingly don't conform to it. So you'll have to go outside the 0-100 range anyway. So you won't get any "benefit" from it, even when the "benefit" was dubious to begin with.
Wait till you see international ovens and cooking manuals. It's gonna blow your mind.
Wait til you learn that there are other things to do in life than bitch about temperature systems.
This would probably be more impactful if you didn't just jump into a discussion that didn't involve you to make this observation lol
I like how you respond to somebody saying you're bitching by bitching more. Continue crying about it by yourself, please.
You replied to me, unprompted. Can't go complaining I replied after that, that'd be silly
It's better to pick the scale that does conform to it for the vast majority of applications, and then just deal with the others. Either by using C or just dealing with it. For every 1 time you need to deal with temps of your computer, you'll interact with the environmental temperature a thousand times. And neither C or F are inherently better for describing CPU temps.
Oh, I forgot to pull out my cooking manual. Yeah C is MUCH better.
Okay we can all go home. Fal says "C is MUCH better." Argument over
Fal has released us poor souls from this torment. Blessed be.
I mean neither conforms very well, that's the whole point. And what's the deal with 0-100, why is that so beneficial in your opinion?
Well yeah, it was simply about the 0-100 thing.
Wait till you see the ovens. It's incredible. There's usually few temps you need to care about and it changes in 20 degree marks. Incredible, I know.
You forgot to consider that people interact with ovens and freezers
Explain how interacting with ovens and freezers requires knowledge of the specific temperature at which water freezes or boils at standard conditions
Rubbish. The rest of the world understands temperatures in Celsius perfectly well. You're confusing familiarity with superiority
Same with feet and inches for distance.