Idk why you guys are so passionate about this whole rounding thing? Rounding off 107 to 100 doesn’t change the information, only the precision. It’s not easier to interpret 200 than 212 or anything?
This is what i do every time i have to think about celsius, i have rough equivalency ranges which often get my estimations into celsius within 1 or 2 degrees of the actual answer. All i need to know is a few rough datapoints and i can get a really usable output.
The thing is that you need to learn celsius if you are doing science, but celsius users don’t really need to learn fahrenheit, so this isn’t really a problem that comes up for a lot of celsius users.
This is horrible logic. If anything, it should be: you need to learn Celsius if you are doing science, but most people aren’t scientists and therefore don’t need to learn Celsius, so this isn’t really a problem that comes up for a lot of Fahrenheit users.
maybe in high school science, but like you said, after that fact you really don’t touch it ever again, so it becomes a relatively dead concept in most peoples brain
yeah, and it’s like not that hard. If you talk to people that use fahrenheit on the regular, you should learn how to convert to fahrenheit right off the dome, just as they should learn to convert between celsius to fahrenheit as well.
Tl;dr: just round. This goes both ways.
Converting a 1 significant digit number must not increase the number of significant digits.
Idk why you guys are so passionate about this whole rounding thing? Rounding off 107 to 100 doesn’t change the information, only the precision. It’s not easier to interpret 200 than 212 or anything?
If you want quick conversion, just
F ≈ 2 * C + 30
I like how this directly goes against the argument of Fahrenheit being more “graded” with integers lol
If you fail to provide uncertainty it suggest that Celsius is much more complicated because you need to pay attention to decimal points.
If you write 200 it would be anything between ±50and ±1 if you say 212 it means ± 2/1
literally this, just round.
This is what i do every time i have to think about celsius, i have rough equivalency ranges which often get my estimations into celsius within 1 or 2 degrees of the actual answer. All i need to know is a few rough datapoints and i can get a really usable output.
It’s actually just a skill issue.
The thing is that you need to learn celsius if you are doing science, but celsius users don’t really need to learn fahrenheit, so this isn’t really a problem that comes up for a lot of celsius users.
This is horrible logic. If anything, it should be: you need to learn Celsius if you are doing science, but most people aren’t scientists and therefore don’t need to learn Celsius, so this isn’t really a problem that comes up for a lot of Fahrenheit users.
maybe in high school science, but like you said, after that fact you really don’t touch it ever again, so it becomes a relatively dead concept in most peoples brain
yeah, and it’s like not that hard. If you talk to people that use fahrenheit on the regular, you should learn how to convert to fahrenheit right off the dome, just as they should learn to convert between celsius to fahrenheit as well.
Literally anything else is unreasonable lol.