Weather forecasts are only accurate to 1 to 2 degrees Fahrenheit, or about 1 degree Celsius. So the only example you’ve given where Fahrenheit is “superior” is one where the accuracy is so low that we just shrug and give a number in the middle of the range. This doesn’t make using Fahrenheit more accurate, this just makes the scale irrelevant and we use a whole number because having a convention where we skip some would be pointless.
As for being more precise without decimals, I live in a country with half-decent education standards, so decimals and fractions don’t scare me.
Actual historical temperature data is recorded in tenths of a degree Celsius, because full degrees, Celsius or Fahrenheit, aren’t accurate enough. They still aren’t reported in the media, because they don’t matter in an everyday context.
Look, as far as imperial measurements go, Fahrenheit is pretty good. Any temperature scale is going to be arbitrary, and the reasons for Fahrenheit are valid enough. But, frankly, 180 divisions of temperature is nonsensical. The accuracy just isn’t necessary in daily life, and isn’t enough from a scientific context. And if I’m going to use an arbitrary scale, I may as well use the same one as just about all the other ones that don’t have some reason to be divided into multiple different segments, like degrees on a circle. So at that point, you can go decimal, like virtually everything else in the metric system, or you can go with a multiple of 60 for no damned reason besides history.
derf82@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
You go if you want to be precise as Fahrenheit is without decimals.
GreyEyedGhost@piefed.ca 3 weeks ago
Weather forecasts are only accurate to 1 to 2 degrees Fahrenheit, or about 1 degree Celsius. So the only example you’ve given where Fahrenheit is “superior” is one where the accuracy is so low that we just shrug and give a number in the middle of the range. This doesn’t make using Fahrenheit more accurate, this just makes the scale irrelevant and we use a whole number because having a convention where we skip some would be pointless.
As for being more precise without decimals, I live in a country with half-decent education standards, so decimals and fractions don’t scare me.
derf82@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
It isn’t about being “scared” of them, it is about them being used.
And we don’t just make forecasts, we report actual temperatures.
But whatever, you just want an air of superiority.
GreyEyedGhost@piefed.ca 3 weeks ago
Actual historical temperature data is recorded in tenths of a degree Celsius, because full degrees, Celsius or Fahrenheit, aren’t accurate enough. They still aren’t reported in the media, because they don’t matter in an everyday context.
Look, as far as imperial measurements go, Fahrenheit is pretty good. Any temperature scale is going to be arbitrary, and the reasons for Fahrenheit are valid enough. But, frankly, 180 divisions of temperature is nonsensical. The accuracy just isn’t necessary in daily life, and isn’t enough from a scientific context. And if I’m going to use an arbitrary scale, I may as well use the same one as just about all the other ones that don’t have some reason to be divided into multiple different segments, like degrees on a circle. So at that point, you can go decimal, like virtually everything else in the metric system, or you can go with a multiple of 60 for no damned reason besides history.