3 ms·
I'm mostly happy enough with the metric system (though I feel like things might be nicer if we had started out using base 12 instead of base 10) in most areas,
by x1798DE 10y ago
I'm mostly happy enough with the metric system (though I feel like things might be nicer if we had started out using base 12 instead of base 10) in most areas, but I'm not sure I'm convinced about switching to Celsius. I very rarely have to talk about temperatures exceeding 100F, and when I do, they typically range from around 200-600F anyway.
My ideal temperature scale would be one where 0 is 0C and 100 is roughly 100F. Using celsius, you're basically leaving 60% of the 2-digit portion of the scale unused.
- neverminder 10y agoCelcius makes sense, because 0 degrees is water freezing temperature which is the whole point. So for the rest of the world -1 is negative temperature and +1 is positive. What could be more obvious than that?
- x1798DE 10y agoI said that my ideal temperature scale starts at 0C and ends at 100F.
- stephenr 10y agoTemperature is used for more than reporting the weather/human bodily temperatures. 100°c is boiling water (at ~sea level).
- x1798DE 10y agoI'm struggling to think of a common use case that makes heavy use of the "40-75C" range of the Celsius scale, and even for cooking you're mostly looking in the 150C-300C range, which is no more convenient than using 300-500F. There's no particular reason to be hung up on where water boils when it's not creating a particularly useful scale. You could just as easily set 100 to be the point at which proteins denature (~75C).
- stephenr 10y ago"Safe" internal temperatures for cooking meat are in the 63-85°C range.