5 ms·
Yeah warm to hot is good but again runs into clashing with things established before much had been said about black-body radiation. Just because it might not b
by htfu 7y ago
Yeah warm to hot is good but again runs into clashing with things established before much had been said about black-body radiation.
Just because it might not be conductive to a neat 1:1 mapping with scientific common sense doesn't have to mean either should change. Quirks are fun!
- wlesieutre 7y agoI'm used to it myself, but I work in architectural lighting and I can't count how many times I've had to explain that "warm white" is the low temperatures and "cool white" is the high temperatures. It's a frequent nuisance for me, but not a huge deal and we're stuck with it. If we were going to make people put in some effort and redefine fix stupid quirks that exist out of historical convention, I'd put that effort toward adopting metric instead of switching words for shades of white :P It's not like switching cool and hot would make sense either, 2700K (orangeish) is 4400°F and 5000K (blueish) is 8540°F. Neither of those is anything near a "cool" temperature. "Blazing white" and "inferno white"?
- htfu 7y agoExactly what I mean, it's never going to make perfect sense, so trying to adapt two separate meanings to gel slightly better seems futile. I would argue the US still not being on SI is a bit more than a quirk. I wonder whether you'll have completed metrification by the end of the century.
- p1mrx 7y agoIf we're replacing cool white, "blue white" is the best term I can think of... or perhaps "snow white"?