1371

measuring rule (lemmy.blahaj.zone)

submitted 11 months ago by Deegham@lemmy.blahaj.zone to c/196@lemmy.blahaj.zone

239 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Yes, negative numbers exist, and numbers beyond 100. But they’re not that important.

The 100 degree scale is about describing the normal range that humans interact with their environment in

"Well what about all these things outside of this range people use in their daily life?"

What about it?

LOL

And your examples of cooking and your PC are not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about human environmental temperature.

I'm making the case that your "human environmental temperature" is a shit reason to pick Fahrenheit because we have all these things that surprisingly don't conform to it. So you'll have to go outside the 0-100 range anyway. So you won't get any "benefit" from it, even when the "benefit" was dubious to begin with.

But in fact, cooking is another good use for F. You generally only care about a few specific temps. 350F and 400F. Anything else is nuance but basically only matter on the 25 degree marks. So 375, 425. It’s actually a pretty great scale for cooking, with broiling generally maxing out at 500 (unless you’re talking very specific application, like pizza ovens or some shit)

Wait till you see international ovens and cooking manuals. It's gonna blow your mind.

[-] bermuda@beehaw.org 1 points 11 months ago

Wait til you learn that there are other things to do in life than bitch about temperature systems.

[-] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago

This would probably be more impactful if you didn't just jump into a discussion that didn't involve you to make this observation lol

[-] bermuda@beehaw.org 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I like how you respond to somebody saying you're bitching by bitching more. Continue crying about it by yourself, please.

[-] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago

You replied to me, unprompted. Can't go complaining I replied after that, that'd be silly

[-] Fal@yiffit.net 1 points 11 months ago

I’m making the case that your “human environmental temperature” is a shit reason to pick Fahrenheit because we have all these things that surprisingly don’t conform to it. So you’ll have to go outside the 0-100 range anyway. So you won’t get any “benefit” from it, even when the “benefit” was dubious to begin with.

It's better to pick the scale that does conform to it for the vast majority of applications, and then just deal with the others. Either by using C or just dealing with it. For every 1 time you need to deal with temps of your computer, you'll interact with the environmental temperature a thousand times. And neither C or F are inherently better for describing CPU temps.

Wait till you see international ovens and cooking manuals. It’s gonna blow your mind.

Oh, I forgot to pull out my cooking manual. Yeah C is MUCH better.

[-] ThisOne@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

Okay we can all go home. Fal says "C is MUCH better." Argument over

[-] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 3 points 11 months ago

Fal has released us poor souls from this torment. Blessed be.

[-] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 2 points 11 months ago

It’s better to pick the scale that does conform to it for the vast majority of applications, and then just deal with the others. Either by using C or just dealing with it. For every 1 time you need to deal with temps of your computer, you’ll interact with the environmental temperature a thousand times. And neither C or F are inherently better for describing CPU temps.

I mean neither conforms very well, that's the whole point. And what's the deal with 0-100, why is that so beneficial in your opinion?