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
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