[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Apart from the fact that you really, really need to know whether the temperature outside is 66°F or 67°F, because you're the one guy with superpowers who can tell the difference, one wonderful thing about measurement units, SI or arcane, is that God invented the decimal system to help us use them when we need precision.

This is easy. It's much easier to say "It's ninety-six degrees out" than "It's thirty-five point five degrees out."

[subego]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

I have absolutely no idea what that is supposed to mean.

The range of temperatures we experience on this planet as climate, when expressed as Fahrenheit, is about 0-100 degrees.

100 is a factor of 10.

This makes for more utility in the scale because it is granular enough you can divide the scale by 10 and it retains its utility.

By users of Fahrenheit, the temperature range for a day is often expressed in terms of "it's in the 70s" or "its in the 60s", and this contains all the temperature information you need for the day. Each set of 10 degrees is more or less distinct from each other in terms of how people cope with temperature. If you do this with Celsius, you would be describing a range which could mean hoodie weather, or sweat your balls off.

Does this make sense now?

[The Final Dakar]

Interesting point.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

This is easy. It's much easier to say "It's ninety-six degrees out" than "It's thirty-five point five degrees out."

Nobody cares, or feels, that point-five degree. Any context where that .5° is of any meaning whatsoever is on SI, anyway.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by subego 

The range of temperatures we experience on this planet as climate, when expressed as Fahrenheit, is about 0-100 degrees.

100 is a factor of 10.

This makes for more utility in the scale because it is granular enough you can divide the scale by 10 and it retains its utility.

That makes some sense.

As I've mentioned repeatedly, IMO the granularity argument is complete bunk and bears no relation to human experience.

It's all learned, of course.

The freezing point of water, however, does, in a very fundamental, and instantly graspable fashion, relate to our experience, where negative values = freezing.

Originally Posted by subego 

By users of Fahrenheit, the temperature range for a day is often expressed in terms of "it's in the 70s" or "its in the 60s", and this contains all the temperature information you need for the day. Each set of 10 degrees is more or less distinct from each other in terms of how people cope with temperature. If you do this with Celsius, you would be describing a range which could mean hoodie weather, or sweat your balls off.

Does this make sense now?

Yeah, it does, but that's not reality.

Apart from some semantic value, that's not really relevant, as it's as completely arbitrary as anything else.

"Almost thirty", "over thirty", or "just below freezing" are equally as meaningful. You don't use from-to ranges, but point +/- for orientation.

Also, the argument completely breaks down at zero degrees Fahrenheit, which is WELL within the realm of human experience, even within continental United States (and even within the lower 48, AFAIK).

[Laminar]

[Spheric Harlot]

Look! It's granular!

[subego]

@Spheric

subego: I express this preference.

Spheric: that's a preference, you know. It doesn't mean anything. It's a preference.



Where exactly do you expect this to go?

[The Final Dakar]

Can we all agree on -40º?

[subego]

Too damn cold!

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Sanka: You don't understand. I am Sanka Coffie, I am the best pushcart driver in all of Jamaica! I must drive! Do you dig where I'm coming from?
Irv: Yeah, I dig where you're coming from.
Sanka: Good.
Irv: Now dig where I'm coming from. I'm coming from two gold medals. I'm coming from nine world records in both the two- and four-man events. I'm coming from ten years of intense competition with the best athletes in the world.
Sanka: That's a hell of a place to be coming from!

[subego]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

which is WELL within the realm of human experience

Hence my use of the qualifier "about".

[The Final Dakar]

I'll move to Celcius when we adopt metric time.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by subego 

@Spheric
Where exactly do you expect this to go?

Frankly, I expect you to eventually admit that Fahrenheit is arbitrary, antiquated bunk, and that metric units are the single most sensible attempt to bring some sense to the madness of obsolete and conflicting measurement units.

You're using some of the historical background behind the Fahrenheit scale to justify its existence and use, but it turned out a century ago to have been just wrong.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I'll move to Celcius when we adopt metric time.

That would require a 400-degree circle. (It's been tried.)

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by the final dakar 

i'll move to celcius when we adopt metric time.

[/thread]

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

That would require a 400-degree circle. (It's been tried.)

Looks like I'm safe, then?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Frankly, I expect you to eventually admit that Fahrenheit is arbitrary, antiquated bunk, and that metric units are the single most sensible attempt to bring some sense to the madness of obsolete and conflicting measurement units.

You're using some of the historical background behind the Fahrenheit scale to justify its existence and use, but it turned out a century ago to have been just wrong.

Now it's my turn to say I don't understand what you are saying.

I know nothing of the historical background of Fahrenheit. If that's what I'm using, it's by accident.

My argument is I find it helpful in day to day use. Sorry, but you don't know me well enough to tell me I don't, and even if you did, you'd still be wrong.

I'm not trying to make it ****ing illegal or anything. I personally don't like it. Is that not okay with you?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Looks like I'm safe, then?

If you've never worked with milliseconds, sure.

This is interesting: Metric time - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Apparently, China used decimal-based time measurements (decidays) for "thousands of years".

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by subego 

My argument is I find it helpful in day to day use. Sorry, but you don't know me well enough to tell me I don't, and even if you did, you'd still be wrong.

Fair enough.

It's just less helpful than Celsius would be in your day-to-day use (unless you never cook, have no freezer, and live in a place where the temperature never goes below freezing).

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

This is interesting: Metric time - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Apparently, China used decimal-based time measurements (decidays) for "thousands of years".

I skimmed the article before posting, and quickly gleaned it's not the kind of article you can skim.

Edit: I cook, but I don't need to know temp, and as for the freezer, again I don't need to know the temp (it's either working or it isn't).

I understand the appeal of having the freezing temp of water be a nice round number, but remembering 32º is freezing is about as difficult as remembering 12 = midday or midnight.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Fair enough.

It's just less helpful than Celsius would be in your day-to-day use (unless you never cook, have no freezer, and live in a place where the temperature never goes below freezing).

Or, you know, since I'm not checking my freezer temp every day like I am with the weather, do a bit of math when that comes up.

As I stated in my OP, I do have an appreciation for SI units. I would never do anything which required more than the simplest calculations in anything else. Temperature included.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Fair enough.

It's just less helpful than Celsius would be in your day-to-day use (unless you never cook, have no freezer, and live in a place where the temperature never goes below freezing).

Actually, running a licensed group home, we have to keep our freezers at 0ºF. Or would that be easier to remember as -17.7777777ºC? You keep a freezer at 0ºC and nothing will be frozen.

As for cooking... (USDA safe cooking temps)
Poultry - 165ºF = 73.88888888888889ºC
Ground meats - 160 °F = 71.11111111111111ºC
Steaks and Roasts - 145ºF = 62.77777777777778ºC

Baking... (using common baking temps)
350ºF = 176.66666666666669ºC
375ºF = 190.55555555555557ºC
500ºF = 260ºC

I'm sure your government has different standards and I'm sure your baking recipes have different instructions. I'm just gving you an example of cooking life in the USA.

[Phileas]

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

As for cooking... (USDA safe cooking temps)
Poultry - 165ºF = 73.88888888888889ºC
Ground meats - 160 °F = 71.11111111111111ºC
Steaks and Roasts - 145ºF = 62.77777777777778ºC

Seriously ?

You know that in Europe, they teach 71ºC for ground meats, which would be 159.7777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777 77777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777 77777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777 77777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777 77777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777 77777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777 7777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777ºF. Approximately.

[/silly]

-t

[MacinTommy]

The heat doesn't bother me... the humidity on the other hand makes it feel like a rain forrest some days. #southgeorgia

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Seriously ?

You know that in Europe, they teach 71ºC for ground meats, which would be *159.777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777 77777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777 77777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777 77777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777 77777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777 77777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777 77777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777ºF . Approximately.

[/silly]

-t

Which is why I added:

Originally Posted by Railroader 

I'm sure your government has different standards and I'm sure your baking recipes have different instructions. I'm just gving you an example of cooking life in the USA.

*I'll admit I rounded badly, but I was making a minor point (badly).

[ShortcutToMoncton]

There is zero logical rationale for using Farenheit. Beyond, "hey...if it was good enough for the Founding Fathers, it's good enough for me", that is.

/thread

[subego]

I'm open-minded, but that's a non-argument.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Well, that and "I grew up with it."

Good enough?

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

There is zero logical rationale for using Farenheit. Beyond, "hey...if it was good enough for the Founding Fathers, it's good enough for me", that is.

/thread

[thread_reopened] Purely your opinion.

[subego]

I get the distinct feeling that certain people think Fahrenheit wasn't familiar with boiling and frozen water, or that the idea of units similar to Celsius didn't occur to him.

He scaled the units the way he did for a reason.

[ghporter]

Indeed. And Fahrenheit didn't just pull numbers out of thin air. He used three specific temperatures as references: a self-stabilizing brine-like mixture, ice water, and what he called "blood temperature."

As his work progressed, the choice of the top number was adjusted for higher granularity, and to avoid fractions in practical use.

Saying that there is no reasonable purpose to continuing to use the Fahrenheit scale, and particularly to suggest that such use is either lazy or dependent on some sort of parochial "we've always done it this way" attitude is itself chauvinistic about one's own habitual use.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Nonsense. I'm not joking in the slightest. There really is no good reason to use it. It's no worse or better than any other temperature measurement in terms of "working with" it IMO, but since almost no one else now does, it's the same as your continued use of the imperial scale - it's inconvenient, it's more awkward, but it's damn comfortable and you're a stubborn bunch of assholes.

greg

[Waragainstsleep]

Kelvin is what we should all be using really. Thats the agreed international scientific standard. Celsius is sort of allowed because its like a rebranded Kelvin with the same 'size' degrees.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Actually, running a licensed group home, we have to keep our freezers at 0ºF. Or would that be easier to remember as -17.7777777ºC? You keep a freezer at 0ºC and nothing will be frozen.

As for cooking... (USDA safe cooking temps)
Poultry - 165ºF = 73.88888888888889ºC
Ground meats - 160 °F = 71.11111111111111ºC
Steaks and Roasts - 145ºF = 62.77777777777778ºC

Baking... (using common baking temps)
350ºF = 176.66666666666669ºC
375ºF = 190.55555555555557ºC
500ºF = 260ºC

One truly awesome thing about the metric system is that it supports rounding, just like yours!

[subego]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Nonsense. I'm not joking in the slightest. There really is no good reason to use it. It's no worse or better than any other temperature measurement in terms of "working with" it IMO...

This is just flat out wrong. Whether something is better or worse depends on context.

If the context is, say, astrophysics, you want to argue Celsius is no better or worse than Kelvin?


Edit: as another example, not that I'd be so passionate about arguing inches over centimeters, but there are all kinds of places where it's more handy to use a fractional unit over a decimal one.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Nonsense. I'm not joking in the slightest. There really is no good reason to use it. It's no worse or better than any other temperature measurement in terms of "working with" it IMO, but since almost no one else now does, it's the same as your continued use of the imperial scale - it's inconvenient, it's more awkward, but it's damn comfortable and you're a stubborn bunch of assholes.

greg

If "everyone else is doing it" is valid, then so is "we've always done it this way."

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Edit: as another example, not that I'd be so passionate about arguing inches over centimeters, but there are all kinds of places where it's more handy to use a fractional unit over a decimal one.

Noooo don't bring that into this...

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by subego 

This is just flat out wrong. Whether something is better or worse depends on context.

If the context is, say, astrophysics, you want to argue Celsius is no better or worse than Kelvin?

Um. They're identical, they just have different offsets. There is no difference between them.

Originally Posted by subego 

there are all kinds of places where it's more handy to use a fractional unit over a decimal one.

Interesting. Such as?

And is there any advantage over using, say, tenths of a meter (decimeter), or tenths of a cm?

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Noooo don't bring that into this...

I can't help it.

If I could use only one for the rest of my life I'd pick the decimal, but I'll be damned if someone tells me getting an 1/8th of a centimeter is as easy as getting an 1/8 of an inch.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Um. They're identical, they just have different offsets. There is no difference between them.

The fact there is a difference in offsets means they are not identical.

Again, the point here is context matters.

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Interesting. Such as?

When you need an 1/8 of a unit.

[Spheric Harlot]

WTF would anybody WANT "1/8th of a centimeter", when 1.25 mm is just fine?

How often do you deal in 13ths of an inch? Why would you if there isn't a compelling reason to deal with that unit?

[turtle777]

Forget it, Spheric. Once people get used to a stupid system, they're not gonna change.

-t

[subego]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Forget it, Spheric. Once people get used to a stupid system, they're not gonna change.

-t

Yet another non-argument.


Edit: I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don't realize you're taking the position fractions are teh stupid.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

WTF would anybody WANT "1/8th of a centimeter", when 1.25 mm is just fine?

1.25 mm is fine if your ruler has hash marks out to 10 microns, and you presumably have a magnifying glass.

Edit: 50 microns. Whoops.

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

How often do you deal in 13ths of an inch? Why would you if there isn't a compelling reason to deal with that unit?

Far less than I deal with 1/8th or 1/16th units, which is all the time.

[andi*pandi]

All measurements should be in picas, with no fractions. 6 points to a pica.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by subego 

This is just flat out wrong. Whether something is better or worse depends on context.

If the context is, say, astrophysics, you want to argue Celsius is no better or worse than Kelvin?

Not sure what you're arguing here - I was just pointing out that, unlike say the issue of using imperial measurements, there isn't really an issue of Farenheit being any more "difficult to work with" than, say, K or C.

Edit: as another example, not that I'd be so passionate about arguing inches over centimeters, but there are all kinds of places where it's more handy to use a fractional unit over a decimal one.

Oh come on, what does fractional units or decimal units have to do with imperial vs. metric? You can still say "3/4 of a centimetre" just as you can "0.75 of a mile" - they mean the same thing. The issue is that 3/4 centimetre is easily convertible to m, Km, or easily used in calculations with other metric measurements. That's simply not the case with using inches.

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

If "everyone else is doing it" is valid, then so is "we've always done it this way."

But that's not the point. The point is that everyone else has a reason for doing it. As in, they used to use imperial, but switched to a better system.

"We've always done it this way" is your reason. Even though I think most of you would agree that it makes more sense to use metric as a system.

greg

[subego]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Not sure what you're arguing here - I was just pointing out that, unlike say the issue of using imperial measurements, there isn't really an issue of Farenheit being any more "difficult to work with" than, say, K or C.

What I'm saying is if the context is climate, C is in fact easier to work with than K.

Unless I misunderstand (which is quite possible), this is in direct opposition to your claim.

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Oh come on, what does fractional units or decimal units have to do with imperial vs. metric?

Nothing directly. It's an artifact of how the systems developed. In theory, the fact you can carve up SI units into fractions or decimals is a huge advantage. In practice, it's rarely done. Likewise, you can create fractional units with decimal units, but if you split anything smaller than a meter, as useful a fraction as 1/8 is going to require greater than millimeter precision.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

But that's not the point. The point is that everyone else has a reason for doing it. As in, they used to use imperial, but switched to a better system.

That's not really what you said:

"It's no worse or better than any other temperature measurement in terms of "working with" it IMO, but since almost no one else now does, it's the same as your continued use of the imperial scale - it's inconvenient, it's more awkward..."

It's inconvenient from the perspective of being on the outside looking in. But it's convenient for us to stick with it because it's what we're used to. Where SI units "make sense" in terms of calculations and international intelligibility we use them. For everything else, imperial measurements are actually more convenient and less awkward. For us.