this post was submitted on 29 Oct 2023
1108 points (95.3% liked)
Memes
45550 readers
1770 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
My point was any numbers are useful for weather if you're used to them, but if you proposed a new scale without any baggage attached to it 0 to 100 makes way more sense than starting at neg something and going to 40 instead of a rounder number like 50 or 100
Below 0 means dangerous. That's something that F doesn't do clearly.
Below 0 C? Freezing doesn't mean dangerous (obviously it's dangerous if you're homeless or don't have regular access to heat). I live somewhere now that it hovers around freezing all winter and I literally can't wear my old thick coats from where I grew up (northern US). I have to wear a fall coat pretty much all winter or I overheat. Below 0 F is a much better indication of dangerous weather than the freezing point.
How about just slipperyness? The fact that you can't farm and thus have no reliable food source? The fact your water souce disappears?
I'll admit, no method of measurement is perfect as biomes changes too drastically. This doesn't mean Fahrenheit is better though. It's not more intuitive, it's not better at actual measurements, and it's not as accepted by society ('cause people way smarter than me did find Fahrenheit worse than Celcius (see any above high school science/engineering))
To explain the more intuitive, I am literally incapable of using Fahrenheit, and it means fuck all to me. Thus my intuition is incapable of using it, and thus Fahrenheit isn't naturally understandable. Granted, Celcius isn't either.
if 0-100 isnt intuitive, the scale was never the problem