• 0 Posts
  • 1.52K Comments
Joined 9 months ago
cake
Cake day: December 22nd, 2023

help-circle
  • The words you are looking for are that Fahrenheit is more precise. But it’s not as there are an infinity of numbers between any two integers.

    yeah and you could make a temperature scale call it fuckwit and make water freeze at -1, and water room temperature at 0, and then make it boil at 1. I don’t know why you would want to do that though.

    My thermometer at work which I use for health and safety stuff reports temperature to two decimal places. Had we wanted more precision we could have gone with twenty decimal places. In too big or too small metric units we use multipliers - metres are too small for long distances so we use kilometres (thousands of metres), metres are too big for construction so we use millimetres (thousandths of metres)

    well you wouldn’t go with twenty decimal spaces because after you get past about 4 decimals, it starts to become inconsequential, and you should really just use sci no anyway.

    Where Celcius degrees are too big, people (scientists, since whole degrees or a single decimal is enough for everyone else) use milikelvins

    fascinating that you propose this, because this is literally the opposite of what i said lol.


  • my main point was that accuracy matters a lot less with fahrenheit, because it’s so much broader. a range of about 10 degrees fahrenheit is the average subjectively experienced “change” in temperature, at least on the higher end, where there’s more difference between the individual numbers. On the cold side there’s a lot less variance as it meets at about -40 in both systems.

    In any case neither scale runs out of numbers high or low

    this is very true though, hard to run out of numbers when you can just make more up, although there is an ultimate limit in either direction, due to what temperature actually measures. That’s a physics thing though.



  • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.comtoScience Memes@mander.xyzBurning Up
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 days ago

    Is Fahrenheit intuitive? No

    no, and neither is any other numbering system, it’s all arbitrary we already determined this.

    proven by the fact that it can’t be used without prior understanding, as shown in my example.

    as you try and apply celsius logic to the fahrenheit system in order to understand fahrenheit, incorrectly… While still ignoring my prime example here.


  • yeah, and? What are they going to do? Send the DEA after you for growing GMO titties? Gonna hit you with the ATF because you grew hormonally altered facial hair?

    They’ve got shit like fentanyl to be worrying about. I think this is probably the least of concerns, especially considering this is less “drug addiction” and more “illegal prescription drugs” instead. Besides, they don’t get drug money from trans people.

    It’s certainly a potential risk for procurement of the drug legally. But that’s already a problem.


  • the celsius scale literally covers 55% of the range of the fahrenheit scale. I’d say “about half” is perfectly reasonable.

    granted, it skews since you’re starting on the low end. The figure is more like 122f right in the middle, which is, not great, but i wasn’t going to calculate the half boiling point as i’ve literally never seen it be relevant anywhere lol.



  • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.comtoScience Memes@mander.xyzBurning Up
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 days ago

    No and that’s not what I claimed. What I’m saying is that if you tell someone accustomed to Celcius “it’s 42F° outside, oh by the way fahrenheit goes from 0=really cold to 100=really hot”, they have no idea about the actual weather.

    obviously, but nobody was saying that, so i’m not sure why it’s relevant.

    This is like explaining what a door is to someone, only for them to remove the door and go “well now what’s it supposed to do?”

    “Really cold” and “really hot” are completely subjective. They depend on the climate you’re used to and come down to personal preference even.

    not strictly? 0f is cold enough to require wearing additional layers if you don’t want to freeze and die after a long enough period of time. 100f, while more livable, is still rather hot. Hot enough that you can’t really do hard labor in that weather. Even people who live in climates that are really hot know this, and there’s a reason they often wear really specific clothing, or end up having darker skin. Although that’s evolutionary advantage at that point.

    Unless you took someone living in finland, and someone living in australia. Although deserts aren’t really a fair comparison here either. They can get quite cold as well. They’re obviously going to have a bit of a different reaction, but i doubt it’s going to be significant enough to break the scale. It’s probably going to shift one way or the other a little bit, but that’s to be expected.

    Percentages of subjective temperature tell me nothing. 20F° would basically have to be 20% warmer than “really cold”, right? Intuitively I would have guessed somewhere around 7°C (nice autumn morning), turns out 20F° is still way below the freezing point. The idea of 0F° and 100F° does not, in fact, help me interpret these values “with no prior understanding”.

    again, you’re applying celsius logic to a fahrenheit problem, and then being surprised when it doesn’t work. You don’t know what 0f is, not because fahrenheit is stupid and bad, but because you don’t use it. So you’re trying to estimate into a system you don’t know, and then you’re complaining about my generalization when it’s your translation that doesn’t work. It’s clearly evident because you even say “20f is way below freezing” which is not at all true here in the fahrenheit lands. 20f is just below freezing here. well below freezing happens when you crack around 10-15f. Way below freezing is quite literally, about 0f.

    The idea of 0F° and 100F° does not, in fact, help me interpret these values “with no prior understanding”.

    no it doesn’t and thats because you have an anti thetical world view that you’re trying to apply to it. This breaks the application of the heuristic very evidently.

    It’s simply not an intuitive frame of reference - except if you have at one point learned what the numbers mean.

    sure, but my point is still that the 0f-100f is a broadly applicable heuristic that should roughly hold true. i believe if you convert these numbers into celsius, which is how you would correctly apply this heuristic, you would see something roughly equivalent to -20c and 40c, which to me seems to line up with how celsius peeps seem to experience temperature.








  • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.comtoScience Memes@mander.xyzBurning Up
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    Only if you asked people accustomed to Fahrenheit. People who aren’t used to it cannot use it without prior understanding at all. To think otherwise just proves your confirmation bias again.

    ok, so you genuinely think, that people who use celsius cannot experience the sensation of “hot” and “cold” without a number referencing the temperature directly in front of them? Specifically that of the celsius system?

    I understand the point you’re trying to make, but it’s irrelevant and doesn’t matter. If you were to put someone into a room at either 0 or 100 degrees fahrenheit (without telling them the temperature of the room), from a climate relatively similar to the US, they would either say “it’s really cold” or “it’s really hot” even if they’re not directly from a similar climate, it would still be relatively inline with these expectations.

    this is what we mean when we say “really hot” and “really cold” the human body has an innate response to the temperatures that it experiences. Classifying it accurately is hard. But in this case it doesn’t need to be, it’s a heuristic.

    Then what should “intuitive” even mean if not “intuitive to use”? Because it certainly isn’t that.

    think of a hammer, an intuitive feature of a hammer is pretty obvious, there is only one realistic way to use it. You can’t grab it by the hand and do much with it. The head itself is shaped and specifically designed for a certain type of use case, and the handle is pretty clearly built for holding onto.

    going further, an intuitive feature of a rock is the ability to move/throw it. There are certain thing that are so fundamental to the human experience, there isn’t much in the way of conceptualization there.

    intuition is simply the ability to naturally reason without external influence. For example, being able to place your foot where it needs to be so you don’t fall down a cliff. And intuitive system would be one that is innately familiar to the user, which obviously nothing is. But systems can have intuitive features or design elements however.


  • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.comtoScience Memes@mander.xyzBurning Up
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 days ago

    “a 0-100 scale of how hot it is outside” and required “no prior understanding to use it as such”.

    and this is generally the case. I’m sure if you were to sample the opinion of people randomly, this is roughly what you would get back. I may have said that it was an intuitive feature of fahrenheit, and it is, and so is the 0-100 scale of water freezing/boiling in celsius, but that’s irrelevant aside from the fact that it’s intuitive, and that point of contextual relevance you might as well mention that plants are green, and that the sky is blue.

    Since then you seem to be arguing against a straw man.

    possibly, but i’m mostly complaining about the collective response here, not the particular responses in this thread in particular. Which is also quite long so i don’t even really recall what has been said here to be specifically accurate.