• shinratdr@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year 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.

    • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      We do cooking temps in Fahrenheit, weather in Celsius.

      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:

      • overcast5348@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Fahrenheit: let’s use “really cold weather” as zero and really hot weather as 100.

        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 if 100F was equal to something like 65°C. 🤷‍♂️

          • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year 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.

            • C126@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              So why not make the temperature go to the hottest? Let me guess, 0 isn’t the coldest either in America, right? It’s just so arbitrary, and pure cope to say it’s the best way to describe temperature.

              • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                It’s just so arbitrary

                All of them are. The decision to use water at all is completely arbitrary. Even Kelvin and Rankine are completely arbitrary: the “width” of the degrees is not defined by a physical factor, but relative to an entirely arbitrary concept.

                • psud@aussie.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  We live on a water planet. The weather we care about is water.

                  If you look at the overnight low you probably want to know if frost was likely. Guess what Celcius temperature frost happens at.

                  • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    That factoid makes celsius relevant for about 4 out of the 12 months, and humans lack the capacity to distinguish between 60-100 on the Celsius scale. Anything at those temperatures just feels like blisters.

        • phobiac@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year 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.

          • psud@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            an ammonium chloride brine

            At what molar concentration? Was it just as much NH4Cl as he could dissolve at ambient temperature and pressure?

    • Bongles@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • shinratdr@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        It doesn’t help at all, it’s being intentionally obtuse. You know what I mean, it’s unhelpful to pretend otherwise and pick a fight over it.

        • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year 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.