• 0 Posts
  • 22 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: June 8th, 2023
  • imaqtpie@sh.itjust.workstoLemmy Shitpost@lemmy.world•Everyday, as an American
    1·
    5 months ago

    The increments of 10f doesn’t make sense at all, though seems to be a common perception among people who prefer fahrenheit

    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.

  • imaqtpie@sh.itjust.workstoLemmy Shitpost@lemmy.world•Everyday, as an American
    13·
    5 months ago

    Tread lightly my friend. I already won the Fahrenheit vs. Celsius debate few months ago, but Europeans are insanely defensive about the metric system and won’t accept the truth.

    https://sh.itjust.works/comment/9757434

    I’ll transcribe my best arguments because that thread was an absolute shitshow and it’s hard to find my comment even with the direct link. Almost all of my most downvoted comments on Lemmy came during my defense of the Fahrenheit temperature scale, and I’m weirdly proud of that fact.

    Fahrenheit Supremacy Gang

    Celsius is adequate because it’s based on water, and all life on earth is also based on water, so it’s not totally out of our wheelhouse. But for humans specifically I think Fahrenheit is the clear answer.

    One point that many may overlook is that most of us here are relatively smart and educated. There are a good number of people on this planet who just aren’t very good with numbers. Obviously a genius could easily adapt their mind to Kelvin or whatever.

    You have to use negative numbers more frequently with Celsius > Celsius has a less intuitive frame of reference

    Each Celsius degree is nearly two Fahrenheit degrees > Celsius is less granular

    The reason I argue the more granular Fahrenheit is more intuitive is because a one degree change should intuitively be quite minor. But since you only have like 40 or 50 degrees to describe the entire gamut of human experiences with Celsius, it blends together a bit too much. I know that people will say to use decimals, but its the same flaw as negative numbers. It’s simply unintuitive and cumbersome.

    B) 66F is room temperature. Halfway between freezing (32F) and 100F.

    the intuition is learned and not natural.

    All scales have to be learned, obviously. It’s far easier to create intuitive anchorpoints in a 0-100 system than a -18 to 38 system. Thus, Fahrenheit is more intuitive for the average person.

    I should note that if you are a scientist, the argument completely changes. If you are doing experiments and making calcualtions across a much wider range of temperatures, Celsius and Kelvin are much more intuitive. But we are talking about the average human experience, and for that situation, I maintain Fahrenheit supremacy

    It’s not about the specific numbers, but the range that they cover. It’s about the relation of the scale to our lived experience. Hypothetically, if you wanted to design a temperature scale around our species, you would assign the range of 0-100 to the range that would be the most frequently utilized, because those are the shortest numbers. It’s not an absolute range, but the middle of a bell curve which covers 95% of practical scenarios that people encounter. It doesn’t make any sense to start that range at some arbitrary value like 1000 or -18.

    When the temperature starts to go above the human body temperature, most humans cannot survive in those environments. Thus, they would have little reason to describe such a temperature. Celsius wastes many double digit numbers between 40-100 that are rarely used. Instead, it forces you to use more negative numbers.

    This winter, many days were in the 10s and 20s where I live. Using Celsius would have been marginally more inconvenient in those scenarios, which happen every winter. This is yet another benefit of Fahrenheit, it has a set of base 10 divisions that can be easily communicated, allowing for a convenient level of uncertainty when describing a temperature.

    Generally -40 to 40 are the extremes of livable areas.

    Sure, water is a really good system and it works well.

    And for F that range is -40 to 104. See how you get 64 extra degrees of precision and nearly all of them are double digit numbers? No downside.

    Furthermore F can use its base 10 system to describe useful ranges of temperature such as the 20s, 60s, etc. So you have 144 degrees instead of just 80, and you also have the option to utilize a more broad 16 degree scale that’s also built in.

    You might say that Celsius technically also has an 8 degree scale(10s, 30s), but I would argue that the range of 10 degrees Celsius is too broad to be useful in the same way. In order to scale such that 0C is water freezing and 100C boiling, it was necessary for the units to become larger and thus the 10C shorthand is much less descriptive than the 10F shorthand, at least for most human purposes.

  • imaqtpie@sh.itjust.workstoReddit@lemmy.world•Reddit if full of bots: thread reposted exactly the same, comment by comment, 10 months later
    3·
    6 months ago

    Yeah I feel you, at least the Orioles team is super stacked rn though (speaking as a Yankees fan 🫠). !yankees@fanaticus.social is equally dead.

    My current thought process is that if we can get a decently active generalized baseball community going, it could provide a stepping stone to increasing the activity in the team-specific communities. I’m trying to be active on !mlb@lemmy.ml and !baseball@fanaticus.social as much as possible.

    There is already a latent population of sports fans on Lemmy, but it’s sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy that the communities aren’t active so people assume there must be no other fans.

    My other thought on this topic is that although I do miss the active fan discussion and game threads, the subreddits for essentially all of my teams were indisputably toxic cesspools. The whining, armchair GMing, scapegoating, and just completely idiotic takes were out of this world. So it’d be nice to have activity, but too much activity can also degrade the quality of discussion to the level of Twitter and just create a very toxic environment where fans are constantly arguing and complaining.

  • imaqtpie@sh.itjust.workstoNonCredibleDefense@sh.itjust.works•"Unidentified"? More like "Don't ask, don't tell"English
    313·
    1 year ago

    People tend to misapply this argument frequently. It is definitely a bit excessive to say there is zero chance, but still.

    It’s less about what is possible, and more about what is likely. Our understanding of physics (and by extension, reality) is extremely advanced. There isn’t much that is going to surprise us going forward. Even relativity and quantum theory didn’t make Newtonian mechanics obsolete, they simply covered the fringe cases.

    I just hate when people imply that we might suddenly learn that we were completely wrong about everything. It’s dismissive of the scientists who have given their lives to bring humanity to this level of understanding the universe.