What doesn't make sense about it? You can tell another person it's in the 30s outside, and you have efficiently communicated more information than is possible when using Celsius. You'd have to say it's between 4 and negative 1, which is just lame. And this remains true across every temperature, because of a variety of factors which I explained above.

In every climate which you mentioned above, it's easier to communicate how hot or cold it is outside using Fahrenheit. This is because all of the numbers being used are non-negative integers (aka natural numbers). Even the triple digit ones are one-ten or one-twenty.

I wonder why mathematicians named them that? Possibly because they come naturally? Unlike negative one point seven.

[–] shylosx@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago (2 children)

They will defend Celsius being used for everyday weather reporting with their last breath with their ONLY fallback being "well you're just used to fahrenheit durrrrrrr" as if that logic can't be applied to every unit system on earth.

[–] bigschnitz@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

as if that logic can't be applied to every unit system on earth.

Mate that's my whole point. I grew up Celsius in Australia and use Farenheit day to day now. They are literally interchangable once you learn. It takes a month or two to get used of using them and beyond that, the literal only difference in difficulty of use is that it takes about ten seconds longer to calculate a green tea brew in f, which has no bearing on the weather anyway. All of the arguments above are garbage, as they are garbage when the exact same, inverted arguments are made by metric proponents.

[–] shylosx@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

All measurements scales are interchangeable once you learn - that's not the point of this particular thread of comments. It's "what's most useful comparatively given the SI penchant for base 10". The answer isn't a temperature scale that, for day to day human concern, is not -18 to 38 - that's fucking stupid.

[–] bigschnitz@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Why do yanks insist picking such idiotic numbers when they speak in metric, seriously wtf is -18 to 38? If those were realistic temperatures, surely you realize it would be -20 to 40, no?

-20, or any negative c, is rare to most ff the worlds population so your comment is dumb on two fronts.

[–] shylosx@lemmy.world -1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

No need to be a dumb cunt mate. -18C to 38C is the closest you'd get to the 0-100F range I mentioned earlier. It's a stupid-ass interval. Just as stupid as 5280 feet in a mile for instance.

Why use negatives at all? There's a perfectly good temperature scale that largely doesn't need negatives, is conceptually similar to the base 10 construction of other SI units, and is more precise than Celsius.

Negative C is absolutely common what the fuck are you talking about. Canada, Russia, the US, some deserts. Several countries experience regular highs in the 0Cs during winter months and therefore negative lows. Someone should get out more.

[–] bigschnitz@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

No need to be a dumb cunt mate. -18C to 38C is the closest you'd get to the 0-100F range I mentioned earlier. It's a stupid-ass interval. Just as stupid as 5280 feet in a mile

Yeah, and people in metric round the exact same as they do in f. You think the hot parts of the US don't hit 122 or something equally arbitrary? When talking range, anyone who isn't unhinged approximates to the nearest whole number.

Why use negatives at all? There's a perfectly good temperature scale that largely doesn't need negatives, is conceptually similar to the base 10 construction of other SI units, and is more precise than Celsius.

Why the fuck not? It makes literally no difference. Some people like freezing to be at a focal point of a scale, and some based on this thread have some bizarre fear of negatives. Either preference is equally arbitrary and neither is objectively right.

Negative C is absolutely common what the fuck are you talking about. Canada, Russia, the US, some deserts. Several countries experience regular highs in the 0Cs during winter months and therefore negative lows. Someone should get out more.

A few degrees is common. Most populous county in the world is India, how common do you think it is there? Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico etc etc etc. it's a minority of countries that experience anything substantially below zero c. You know, I've been to literal mt Everest base camp, lived in western pa and been to the winter Olympics in South Korea and still have never seen -20C. Does it exist? Obviously, but for day to day ease of use for like 80% of the worlds population it's irrelevant.

[–] shylosx@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago

That's a lot of words to say nothing.

[–] imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 months ago

Yeah. I've had some time to ruminate and I think part of it stems from the impossibility of them not using Celsius in their lives. Like, they're not going to singlehandedly make their country start using Fahrenheit, so accepting it as better would just create cognitive dissonance.

[–] bigschnitz@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

What doesn't make sense about it? You can tell another person it's in the 30s outside, and you have efficiently communicated more information than is possible when using Celsius. You'd have to say it's between 4 and negative 1, which is just lame. And this remains true across every temperature, because of a variety of factors which I explained above.

It doesn't tell you anything that Celsius can't with a 5 degree swing. This the absolute peak of arbitrary, both 5s and 10s are easy scales to work with. Your example of between 4 and negative one is deranged. I'm in houston right, it's 90°f - if I want to comunnicate that to my yankee girlfriend I'd say "babe it's 90° outside, might get up to one hundred" and so far, you're right this is easy to articulate. If I want to communicate that same information to my mum, I'd say "hey it's 30° outside, might get up to 35°". Both cases convey information with the same accuracy, both cases I haven't mentioned humidity, which for actual temperature feel has a way higher influence then 5 degrees, the extra information I'd gain by strictly converting 31-37.8°C is junk data, the farenheit measure is approximated to begin with and because of a humidity swing carries a huge variability in actual "feel" anyway. I tried to explain this above and clearly failed, as your response doesn't touch on this at all and just insists that people who think in metric don't default to easy to work with numbers.

In every climate which you mentioned above, it's easier to communicate how hot or cold it is outside using Fahrenheit. This is because all of the numbers being used are non-negative integers (aka natural numbers). Even the triple digit ones are one-ten or one-twenty.

The only place with negative integers was Pittsburg, so that point doesn't make sense for the rest and even if it was, your argument is insane. Saying negative 5 is no harder than saying 25, plus having negatives where snow and ice come into play makes it obvious when to be careful outside. I mean your argument here just makes no sense, if there is some added complexity to saying "negative" then it is surely comparable to having to remember a random number of 32. Literal kindergardeners understand negative numbers. Neither this or remembering the 32 number add any meaningful complexity and certainly have 0 impact on anyone's actual use of either scale.

[–] imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Literal kindergardeners understand negative numbers.

Literal adults have trouble with negative numbers. I can't do this all over again, sorry and have a nice day. Hopefully it's somewhere in the 80s wherever you are

[–] bigschnitz@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Mate I have to reply to that, because it's such an insane claim - the US, the only country that doesn't use °C, has this huge reliance on a monstrously complex credit system (obviously the entire concept of credit is reliant on the concept of debt and negatives). It's flat out insane to suggest that the same people who live and function with such a credit system conceptually struggle with the fundamentals negative numbers. It's a mind boggling claim.

Anyway, have a good one.

[–] imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 months ago

Yes, as we both know, there aren't any Americans who struggle with a low credit score and end up with insurmountable debt...??? Credit is reliant on debt and negatives, and people get screwed by their lack of understanding it every single day. Same with the lottery, except with big numbers and percentages. America is profoundly dysfunctional and it's frequently the people who are bad at math that get exploited.