Comment

Comment on

closer with human-scale temps

So you just never cook anything? Because if you cook, your scale is longer. You have to heat your oven to 350+ degrees, whereas I’m just putting it to 180. So the scale is actually “aligned closer with human-scale temps” whatever your brainfart can be interpreted to mean.

we spend 90% of our lives wandering around in a fairly narrow range of temperatures

You do. You. Just like you think your brainfart is in anyway an improvement instead of just silly rambling without any sense whatsoever.

I have never once cared about the actual temperature of that reaction

Because you don’t live in Peru or the bottom of the sea, so you don’t have to, because you know it’s always pretty much exactly 100 for you.

A person with a stroke could’ve written your comment and it would be none the better.

Not one of your arguments holds any water; Centrigrade is a smaller scale, and a more logical one. Standing naked outside, most people would have a fairly good guess on when it’s near or below 0c. Or as English actually says “freezing.” You couldn’t even tell 0 degrees Fahrenheit. Literally most people in the world have never even experienced such a temperature. I have. I’ve also experienced -40 (where they meet.)

How many days a year do you spend in 0f?

Because in my country being below zero is more common than not. Both C and F, moreso C though, as “it’s closer to a human scale”.

So F is wider, cooking temps are double that of anything in double digits, no-one can even tell where 0f is and 100f is very much not close to the warmest things we handle in our daily lives.

0-100c is quite simple. Over or under, don’t touch with bare skin. (For non cooks stay below 60c though or you’ll burn yourself)

But I don’t need to argue. The works decided long ago.

source

Sort:hotnew top

stickly@lemmy.world ⁨14⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
Lmao no disrespect intended but I hope you take a break for some self care, we’re on a meme post and I’m pitching a hypothetical temperature scale that will see zero implementation or adoption ever. I think it’s fun to play with and debate but there’s no need to get heated about it

source
- Dasus@lemmy.world ⁨12⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
  That’s the problem; you’re not actually pitching anything. You’re badly rationalising why your personal preference would be objectively better, and labeling it in a pseudointellectual bullshit that doesn’t make any sense.
  
  source
  - stickly@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    I mean theres no objectivity to the way we describe the universe anyway
    
    Our society has arbitrarily landed on a base ten numbering system. This colors how we measure, but it could have just as easily been any other historical numbering system (12/20/4/60…)
    
    The length of a meter was chosen by the French based on the size of Earth at that time and relative to Paris. That obviously doesn’t work if you try to account for earth’s gradual shedding of mass or gaining mass via meteors
    
    The length of a second was defined as a fraction of earth’s daily rotation even though the rotation speed is slowing over time
    
    We have thousands of names for specific frequencies of visible light but don’t really bother for the other 99.9965% of the electromagnetic spectrum
    
    We still use classic binomial nomenclature for naming animals even though the whole system of taxonomic rank has basically been abandoned by biologists because evolution is too messy to classify
    
    We basically just do things the way someone in the distant past decided to do things (though we’ve gotten better at defining them via natural constants).
    
    The most clear, “rational” way to observe the universe would be with Planck units (ie. describing the universe within the bounds of our current theories of special relativity, quantum mechanics and gravity). But even that could be upended if we were to further develop/prove our physics theories. An alien race might show up and think our system based around discrete Planck lengths is primitive and quaint.
    
    source
    Dasus@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    
    I mean theres no objectivity to the way we describe the universe anyway
    
    You’re going all in the self-delusing. If there’s no objectivity, then how come we can launch shit to other planets? Why does that tech work?
    
    A meter is more less a yard. Ever heard the term “yard-stick”? Ofc you have, and you know what it means, but you’ll pretend not to.
    
    I’ll tell you that I’m klorknon gribbits tall and that is not objective, because it’s just some bullshit I just made up. Like the bullshit you keep making up to not have to learn the measuring system the entire rest of the world uses.
    
    Feets and pounds are nowadays objective, as they’re based on metric standards, which have been strictly objectively defined, no matter what sophistry you want to wave around about how no measuring system is arbitrary since you don’t understand it.
    
    A second is exactly 9,192,631,770 periods of radiation corresponding to the transition between two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium-133 atom.
    
    And here’s the dictionary definition for “objective”.
    
    objective
    
    adjective
    
    : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
    
    Your “b-b-but it’s a closer to human-scale scale actually much better cause cooking temps and 0 temps don’t matter” is affected by your personal feelings that Fahrenheit is somehow “more human-scale”, whatever the fuck that means.
    
    source