1371
measuring rule
(lemmy.blahaj.zone)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2023
1371 points (99.9% liked)
196
16427 readers
2227 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This isn't kilometers, area, volume, distant measurement. It's temperature. What that 100 is based on is random as fuck, and having the temperature of one elements boiling point at sea level divisible by 10 doesn't really help anything. There is a 100 degree point in Farenhenheit too, you could simply use that for...well whatever reason you need ten to go in evenly.
My guy, I'm not arguing whether the boiling temperature of water is a random point (because it isn't random in any way, and I'm not interested in arguing that). I'm arguing one simple thing: assigning something on a scale to 100 is much less random than assigning it to 212.
I don't think you have a very clear grasp on what random means, and 212 wasn't assigned.
You have no understanding of randomness if you think that 100 is equally random as 212 in our decimal system. No, not every number is equally random, no matter how often you repeat it.
I understand you have a fetish for numbers that are multiples of ten, but that doesn't make them special. Picking a number out of a hat is as likely to be a 9 as a 100.
Acknowledging that powers of a number systems base are special in that system isn't something I ever thought people would disagree with.
Why do you think we have concepts like "percentages"?
Because you people have ten fingers and use them to count.
You're so close to getting it - why is it not a fraction of 10, but a fraction of 100?
Because base 60 was too useful for a bunch of French fuckwits couple hundred years ago
So we use fractions of 100 instead of fractions of 10 because base 60 was too useful? How does that make any sense? The question wasn't why we use base 100 instead of base 60.
Not really knowledgeable bout history either, are you?
Not really able to lead a conversation without non-sequiturs, are you?
It's not a non sequitur. You'd know that if you ever read a book.
No, it's a full-on non-sequitur. As I said, the question wasn't why we use fractions of 100 instead of fractions of 60, but why we use fractions of 100 instead of fractions of 10. What you're saying doesn't relate at all to my question.
But I'm done here, you're either arguing in incredibly bad faith, or you're not capable of understanding my questions. Either isn't something I'll spend more time on.
Just cause you don't understand doesn't make it a non-sequitur