3 ms·

Anywhere in the 70's or 80's Fahrenheit.

alextgordon 16y ago
Can you be more specific? For outdoors temperature we would just say 20 or 23. Nobody needs to add a decimal point, because the precision given by Celsius is sufficient.
- _delirium 16y ago
  For indoor temperatures, European electronic thermostats seem to use half-degrees C, so you can e.g. set the air conditioner to 22.5. Not really a huge problem, but it's interesting that the size of the European thermostat control increment is around 1 F.
- crasshopper 16y ago
  You needed to use two sig figs. Fahrenheit just needs one.
hlidotbe 16y ago
When is the "better" precision needed? Because the article itself says low/high 70's. This would translate to 20-25˚C. Who feels the difference between 72 and 73 (22.2222-22.7777˚C)? If you need precision, you will need decimals, in ˚F or in ˚C. And I don't understand what does it mean to "not use all the digits". They are used, not just for the narrow range he cares about which is the comfort zone in his particular region of the world. In Belgium it is between 15˚C and 25˚c all the year with few extremes on either sides. Nobody need 3 digits to tell if it's warm or not.
- crasshopper 16y ago
  In other words "in the 10's" and "in the 20's" are completely unhelpful statements. In Fahrenheit the range you named is 59℉ and 77℉. "Low to mid 60's" and "mid 70's" communicates with fewer significant digits. 50's and 80's tell you something significant with just one digit. So Belgium is a perfect example of a place where Fahrenheit would be better.
  - derobert 16y ago
    Saying 23 (°C) is less significant figures than "low to mid 70's (°F)" is language lawyering at best. You're ignoring the significant digits expressed by "low to mid". (And, for the record, "low 20's" °C would be 68–73°F, which is a perfectly useful range, just with a slightly shifted boundary than what both of us are used to.)
    - crasshopper 16y ago
      |{low, medium, high}| < |{0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9}| where |s| := the cardinality of s
      - derobert 16y ago
        Well, it'd be "low", "low-to-mid", "mid", "mid-to-high", and "high". So essentially dividing every 2°F, but not really, because the boundaries are fuzzy and quite possibly overlap. Only slightly less cardinality, a phrase that takes longer to say, and much less precision.

Can you be more specific? For outdoors temperature we would just say 20 or 23. Nobody needs to add a decimal point, because the precision given by Celsius is sufficient.

_delirium 16y ago
For indoor temperatures, European electronic thermostats seem to use half-degrees C, so you can e.g. set the air conditioner to 22.5. Not really a huge problem, but it's interesting that the size of the European thermostat control increment is around 1 F.
crasshopper 16y ago
You needed to use two sig figs. Fahrenheit just needs one.

hlidotbe 16y ago

When is the "better" precision needed? Because the article itself says low/high 70's. This would translate to 20-25˚C. Who feels the difference between 72 and 73 (22.2222-22.7777˚C)? If you need precision, you will need decimals, in ˚F or in ˚C. And I don't understand what does it mean to "not use all the digits". They are used, not just for the narrow range he cares about which is the comfort zone in his particular region of the world. In Belgium it is between 15˚C and 25˚c all the year with few extremes on either sides. Nobody need 3 digits to tell if it's warm or not.

crasshopper 16y ago
In other words "in the 10's" and "in the 20's" are completely unhelpful statements. In Fahrenheit the range you named is 59℉ and 77℉. "Low to mid 60's" and "mid 70's" communicates with fewer significant digits. 50's and 80's tell you something significant with just one digit. So Belgium is a perfect example of a place where Fahrenheit would be better.
- derobert 16y ago
  Saying 23 (°C) is less significant figures than "low to mid 70's (°F)" is language lawyering at best. You're ignoring the significant digits expressed by "low to mid". (And, for the record, "low 20's" °C would be 68–73°F, which is a perfectly useful range, just with a slightly shifted boundary than what both of us are used to.)
  - crasshopper 16y ago
    |{low, medium, high}| < |{0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9}| where |s| := the cardinality of s
    - derobert 16y ago
      Well, it'd be "low", "low-to-mid", "mid", "mid-to-high", and "high". So essentially dividing every 2°F, but not really, because the boundaries are fuzzy and quite possibly overlap. Only slightly less cardinality, a phrase that takes longer to say, and much less precision.