> we all know that coffee is intrinsically hot. I know that the coffee I come into contact with on a daily basis is cool enough, in a 2-minute walk from the ma

> we all know that coffee is intrinsically hot. I know that the coffee I come into contact with on a daily basis is cool enough, in a 2-minute walk from the machine to my desk, to poke a finger into it without being burned (momentary exposure is uncomfortable, but doesn't result in injury). Consulting a burn chart [1], I've got to assume that it's a temperature somewhat under 160 degrees by that time. From a coworker's experience, at that point you can dump it on yourself and end up with 1st and 2nd degree burns, rather than the 3rd degree burns from McDonald's coffee. Still, by any reasonable measure, the coffee is certainly "hot". The problem here isn't accuracy, it's precision. "Hot" might mean > 100F/38C. Or it might mean > 200F/93C. If a temperature isn't specified, you're likely to make a judgement based on the past experiences that inform your intuition. It follows that a company selling a product, without providing more precise information about its properties, should provide it in a state that matches a reasonable customer's intuition of what they're buying. I don't think that's an unsettling concept. I think it's one that most people would take as a given. [1] https://www.armstronginternational.com/files/products/valves/pdfs/ay-699.pdf https://www.armstronginternational.com/files/products/valves...