6 ms·

Beauty doesn't necessarily mean practical in all cases. In all honesty, people who grew up with the metric system don't usually understand how practical Fahrenh

by bmitc 4y ago

Beauty doesn't necessarily mean practical in all cases. In all honesty, people who grew up with the metric system don't usually understand how practical Fahrenheit and other non-metric units often are (not always are). Are they hard to calculate with? Yes, sometimes. But they usually directly map to average human experience. For example, humans experience temperatures in the range of 0 - 100 degrees F most of the time. That's -17.8 - 37.78 degrees C. The Celsius range doesn't really make sense in the context of daily experience and is less fine-grained at that. Yes, 0-100 degrees C is freezing to boiling, but humans don't live in that range. The metric system is great for symmetry and calculations but that doesn't always map to practical quantities in those units, in my personal opinion. It's kind of funny when foreign friends will explain to me metric units, when I already know them, but they don't understand anything about non-metric units or their practicality. Edit: I should have known to make this comment, because it's going to get bikeshedded to death (already is). The summary of my point was to say that the metric system is perfect for calculations and representations, but the non-metric systems can often serve more practical purposes. Not always but often. In other words, for daily, non-engineering uses, there's really not much of a strong winner aside from people's country of origin. Even for paper, it's a toss-up for me. I find for notebooks, the A<x> sizes are nice and preferred by me, but US letter size is sometimes more preferred over A4 paper. A4 paper is nice for mathematical notes but can often get in the way of diagramming due to the narrowness. There just seems to be a superiority complex of those that use the metric system, but I don't really get it. Note the use of the word "shocking" in the comment I replied to. Edit 2: Commenting on scales really seems to grind some gears and gets people going. I'm okay with stating that the scales used for various measurements are fairly arbitrary in daily life and that there's pros and cons to both, but still disagree that it's shocking various places don't use the metric system. They certainly cause issues in engineering systems though.

vanderZwan 4y ago
Your subjective experience of temperature has three digits of precision? Because mine sure doesn't.
happymellon 4y ago
My daily experience absolutely fits into the 0-50 range. 0C outside means the ground is hard to work with. 32F is such an arbitrary number when dealing is concrete reality outside.
- bmitc 4y ago
  Well mine and most everyone's is almost exactly 0-100 degrees F, and 50 degrees C is on the extreme. Yes, 32 degrees F is arbitrary, but so are several of the milestones in Celsius. I think my argument is that Fahrenheit is more natural most of the time, but both scales have their sweet spots (which makes sense given their relative nature). But I can't see any clear argument that says Celsius is superior all the time.
  - bhaak 4y ago
    > Well mine and most everyone's is almost exactly 0-100 degrees F, and 50 degrees C is on the extreme. You don't cook?
    - wartijn_ 4y ago
      Their point was related to outside temperatures, which is what most people use temperatures for. And although I've never used Fahrenheit for anything, I don't think the 100c = boiling water is useful in day-to-day life. I've used temperatures in the 60 something to 80 something range to measure the inside of food, my oven goes anywhere from 160 to 220 degrees, but water boils when it goes all bubbly. I know that that's at 100 degrees, but I don't do anything with that info. I don't agree with bmitc's point that Fahrenheit feels more natural. But it seems like that anytime someone has something positive to say about Fahrenheit or imperial measurement, 10 different people need to tell them how wrong they are, and how there can't be anything positive about those systems of measurement. That doesn't seem necessary to me. Especially with temperatures where everyone just remembers a couple of numbers and associates them to a certain feeling or application, and whatever you've used your entire life will feel better or more natural.
      - 4y ago
ygra 4y ago
It comes down to familiarity, but -20 to 40 degrees Celsius isn't that weird a scale, either. You're going to remember more or less arbitrary values for certain things anyway (too hot to be comfortably outside, cold enough to need a jacket, cold enough to need gloves, cold enough to need multiple layers, etc.). In that sense, yeah, Kelvin would be impractical, as would be a theoretical temperature scale that compressed most human-relevant temperatures between 0 and 2 or so. But that's not the case and degrees Celsius is perfectly viable for everyday use, as is (I imagine and you say) degrees Fahrenheit.
reacweb 4y ago
Temperature near 0°C is very important when we travel (meteo, ...). Temperature near 100°C is important when we cook (eggs, pasta, rice). We can leave hands in water at 50°C. Above, it slightly start to cause burns. This is a range that make a lot of sense IMHO.
- bmitc 4y ago
  0 degrees C is certainly nice for freezing, but Celsius loses its usefulness, in my opinion, at the upper ranges. Fahrenheit is okay though, because 32 isn't that hard of a number and 0 degrees F is a big milestone because it's a big (i.e., dangerous) milestone in outside temperatures. > Temperature near 100°C is important when we cook (eggs, pasta, rice). When does that matter on the scale being used? Someone else mentioned this, but I've never known anyone to be taking direct measurements of these things when cooking aside from baking. It's pretty clear when water is boiling. > We can leave hands in water at 50°C. Above, it slightly start to cause burns. When has that been useful and dependent upon a temperature measurement (and thus a temperature scale)?
  - Symbiote 4y ago
    You are putting far too much weight in arbitrary numbers, probably due to personal familiarity. 0°F is a big milestone? I'll claim 1°F should be the milestone instead, or -5.4°F, or 2.33333°F. 15°C or 12°C or something is an important temperature if you live in the tropics without a heating system.
    - wartijn_ 4y ago
      > You are putting far too much weight in arbitrary numbers, probably due to personal familiarity bmitc reacted to the comment that said "Temperature near 100°C is important when we cook (eggs, pasta, rice)." By asking when that info is important. They are not the one here that put weight in arbitrary numbers, at least in that last comment.
      - reacweb 4y ago
citrin_ru 4y ago
Freezing point being 0°C is handy because it is important to know when outdoor temperature crosses this point for multiple reasons - water is too common and important substance to ignore its properties. In Fahrenheit freezing point is a hard to remember value (for someone who used to Celsius). I see nothing special about -17.8°C +37.78°C range except that 37.78°C is very hot. But why 37.78 and not some other value? It is arbitrary. And -17.8°C is even more arbitrary - it is not the coldest weather in many northern regions.
tuyiown 4y ago
> But they usually directly map to average human experience. > they don't understand anything about non-metric units or their practicality. They don't see it the same way that you don't see that the units are totally irrelevant, the brain just have to form habits around the relation between the numbers and the world, but as soon as there are consistant and predictable, the extra effort or lack of doesn't change much about their practicality. The habits are formed early, and doesn't require any extra work once set. Having physical relationships between units without having to remembering ratios can be handy time to times, and for your entire life.
lewisflude 4y ago
Can you give an example of a non-metric unit that is more practical than it's metric counterpart outside of familiarity?
GuB-42 4y ago
Celsius is better for cooking, the Fahrenheit scale is better for hot weather, for colder weather, I prefer Celsius, around 0°C means water is freezing, so, snow, ice, etc... Feet or inches are, I think, a bit more human friendly than meters, but only when used by themselves, that factor of 12 is just weird in a base 10 system. I know that the argument is that you can divide by 3 and 4 easily, but when it matters, metric countries simply make standard sizes a multiple of 12 (ex:120mm). For volumes and weights, I find absolutely no redeeming feature to the imperial / US customary system. The kilogram is a perfectly fine unit, so is the liter, and that both are the same when we are weighing water is a very useful property. Because many things are around the density of water, you know that most things that fits in a 1L bottle weight around a kg, and you can often measure volumes with a scale without conversion. Metric is not the most practical for every single situation, but it is more practical when used as a whole, that is, when you need to deal with with several quantities at the same time (ex: masses and lengths). And there are everyday situation where it is simply better in my opinion, like cooking.
- bmitc 4y ago
  About as reasonable a take as you can get. Can you elaborate on the cooking though? I've seen that mentioned here a couple of times, and I'm not sure I follow. I'm from a Fahrenheit country and my wife from a Celsius country, and it's never caused any issues or confusion in the kitchen. But maybe you mean also for the volumetric measurements as well (or primarily)?
  - GuB-42 4y ago
    It is not about confusion, it is about convenience. I like the idea that water boils at 100°C since it is maybe the most important temperature in cooking. I like the fact that I can measure 500mL of water on a scale as 500g (and other liquids with a small error). Small details that make it more convenient in metric. But there is something else, and I am asking you the question. Since you and your wife live in countries with different unit systems, isn't problem when doing each others recipes? I mean I live in Europe, and if the recipe calls for 4 ounces of butter, I don't have a 4 ounces stick of butter, I have a 125g stick, which is not exactly that. A quart of milk is not exactly the liter I have. And my oven doesn't do 350°F, it does 180°C which is not exactly the same. In the end, I will have to adjust the recipe to my standards, and things may be lost (or gained) in translation, but it won't be the same.
JKCalhoun 4y ago
U.S. Letter size could behave like A4 (root 2) if it were 8.5" x 12" ... not a huge stretch. (Or 7.75" x 11", approximately, if you prefer.)
- talideon 4y ago
  But then it wouldn't be US Letter. There are other paper sizes based around the A series that fit relate back to it as part of a geometric progression, which means stuff fits neatly together. For instance, the C and DL series, which are used for envelopes, with a C4 envelope being exactly the right size for a sheet of A4 paper.
  - JKCalhoun 4y ago
    To be sure, but the point I was questioning was that A4 is too skinny for most use cases, that U.S. Letter was preferred in that regard. Adding 9% to the length of U.S. Letter doesn't seem to make it suddenly overly skinny. Bad for origami though. Ditto with regard to A4. :-)
    - talideon 4y ago
      Preferred by whom? I've never encountered a use case where A4 was too skinny. And it certainly never stopped anyone from making paper airplanes from whole sheets at school. A4 folds neatly to sheets of the same ratio, which is its party trick and why the DL and C series of envelopes are a thing.
EdwardDiego 4y ago
Not this crap again. Fahrenheit maps to your human experience because it's what you grew up with. To me, Celsius maps to my human experience, because it's what I grew up with. That's it. That's all it is, and that's the only reason you think it maps better.
- SeanLuke 4y ago
  No. Fahrenheit really is better than Celsius regardless of your reluctance to admit it. 1. 0 Fahrenheit is close to the typical minimum temperature, and 100 close to the typical maximum temperature, which can be tolerated by humans. Celsius 0 and 100 aren't even remotely close to this: it's surprisingly awful. 2. Fahrenheit has nearly twice the integer resolution of Celsius. This is particularly helpful in describing body temperature. 3. Celsius seems like it'd be useful in cooking but it is not really. Sure, 0 and 100 describe the boiling point and freezing points of water -- in Paris only -- but these are phase changes in water. Nobody says "now hold the temperature at 100C", because water naturally fixes to 100C the entire time it is undergoing its phase change. You don't need to measure it. And Fahrenheit's higher resolution is again very helpful. 4. Scientists don't use Celsius or Fahrenheit. They use Kelvin. Both Celsius and Fahrenheit convert to Kelvin with a linear transformation.
  - Bakary 4y ago
    I have no problem believing that Americans find the Fahrenheit system intuitive, but you are failing to see that for metric users, Celsius is 100% intuitive. I know exactly what sort of clothes to wear for each gradation (assuming it's not something insane like -60C in which case I'm staying home anyway), whereas I genuinely cannot do the same calculus with just Fahrenheit, even taking into account the 0-100 concept of Fahrenheit, which is in itself busted in various regions from Canada to Saudi Arabia. I have to constantly remind myself of what Fahrenheit means, because I never grew up with it. This is a theory of mind issue.
    - pessimizer 4y ago
      > for metric users, Celsius is 100% intuitive. For metric users, Celsius is 100% familiar. Intuitive means that there are a bunch of hints that can give you an idea of values that you don't know. The fact that 0° Fahrenheit is about as cold as you can easily stand and 100° Fahrenheit is about as hot as you can easily stand is something that gives you an intuition: if it's as hot as I can stand, it's about 100°, if it's as cold as I can possibly stand, it's about 0°. I can figure out intermediate values through converting my feelings into a percentage. You can of course do that with Celsius too, but Celsius hasn't been built around a range of human feeling, it's been built around the phase changes of water. You just have to remember the human comfort range in Celsius, do all the same calculations as above, multiply the result by the difference between your low human range and your high human range, then add that to your low human range to get an answer. There's no help, and it might as well be arbitrary.
Bakary 4y ago
I think this is a theory of mind issue. You are used to Fahrenheit intuition and living in the US, so people arguing against your perception seem to be bikeshedding or being willfully obtuse/superior. I can perhaps relate my subjective experience to better explain what's going on. I grew up with Celsius temperatures, so temperatures like 27C or -5C tell me exactly what I should wear when going outside. For Fahrenheit, even though we are told that it maps to human experience, I have to consciously try to remember what these 10F, 20F temperatures mean and often forget. The intuition just isn't there at all. For height, I'm used to the metric system, but I can also understand the imperial system in that specific area because of seeing so many discussions about it over the years. I actually learned to cook while in an Imperial zone, and now I am more used to certain temperatures in F. The reason people find it shocking, is that we are essentially forced to deal against our will with Imperial measurements, because the US is a powerful country. The annoyance has more to do with the sensation of being trapped by another culture and having to adapt to their way of life rather than the reverse.
Koshkin 4y ago
Pretty much the only reason I like the Fahrenheit scale, miles, inches and ounces seems to be that it’s something no one else uses. On the other hand, computers make calculations with these non-metric units just as easy, and precision-wise computers have no advantage to be taken from the base 10 anyway. (The fact that US is stuck with base 10 for numbers doesn’t mean much, as there always are ‘dozens’ and ‘scores.’)
BucketsMcG 4y ago
Maybe your experience maps to the 0-100 Fahrenheit scale, but mine certainly doesn't. Temperatures where I'm from are typically 5-25C, 0-30C at the extremes. So 41-77, or 32-86. So how's Fahrenheit a more useful scale there? And what if you're from, I don't know, Bangkok? The temperature range there is, generously, 80-95F. There are endless examples of where this argument doesn't stand up because the "averafe==ge human experience" is nothing like yours. But of course, it's more or less applicable in most of the US, so you imagine it's universal. Whereas, for the rest of us, 0 is cold, 10 is cool, 20 is warm, 30 is hot, and extrapolate from there. That's simple and relatable enough for me.

by bmitc 4y ago

vanderZwan 4y ago

Your subjective experience of temperature has three digits of precision? Because mine sure doesn't.

happymellon 4y ago

My daily experience absolutely fits into the 0-50 range. 0C outside means the ground is hard to work with. 32F is such an arbitrary number when dealing is concrete reality outside.

bmitc 4y ago
Well mine and most everyone's is almost exactly 0-100 degrees F, and 50 degrees C is on the extreme. Yes, 32 degrees F is arbitrary, but so are several of the milestones in Celsius. I think my argument is that Fahrenheit is more natural most of the time, but both scales have their sweet spots (which makes sense given their relative nature). But I can't see any clear argument that says Celsius is superior all the time.
- bhaak 4y ago
  > Well mine and most everyone's is almost exactly 0-100 degrees F, and 50 degrees C is on the extreme. You don't cook?
  - wartijn_ 4y ago
    Their point was related to outside temperatures, which is what most people use temperatures for. And although I've never used Fahrenheit for anything, I don't think the 100c = boiling water is useful in day-to-day life. I've used temperatures in the 60 something to 80 something range to measure the inside of food, my oven goes anywhere from 160 to 220 degrees, but water boils when it goes all bubbly. I know that that's at 100 degrees, but I don't do anything with that info. I don't agree with bmitc's point that Fahrenheit feels more natural. But it seems like that anytime someone has something positive to say about Fahrenheit or imperial measurement, 10 different people need to tell them how wrong they are, and how there can't be anything positive about those systems of measurement. That doesn't seem necessary to me. Especially with temperatures where everyone just remembers a couple of numbers and associates them to a certain feeling or application, and whatever you've used your entire life will feel better or more natural.
    - 4y ago

ygra 4y ago

It comes down to familiarity, but -20 to 40 degrees Celsius isn't that weird a scale, either. You're going to remember more or less arbitrary values for certain things anyway (too hot to be comfortably outside, cold enough to need a jacket, cold enough to need gloves, cold enough to need multiple layers, etc.). In that sense, yeah, Kelvin would be impractical, as would be a theoretical temperature scale that compressed most human-relevant temperatures between 0 and 2 or so. But that's not the case and degrees Celsius is perfectly viable for everyday use, as is (I imagine and you say) degrees Fahrenheit.

reacweb 4y ago

Temperature near 0°C is very important when we travel (meteo, ...). Temperature near 100°C is important when we cook (eggs, pasta, rice). We can leave hands in water at 50°C. Above, it slightly start to cause burns. This is a range that make a lot of sense IMHO.

bmitc 4y ago
0 degrees C is certainly nice for freezing, but Celsius loses its usefulness, in my opinion, at the upper ranges. Fahrenheit is okay though, because 32 isn't that hard of a number and 0 degrees F is a big milestone because it's a big (i.e., dangerous) milestone in outside temperatures. > Temperature near 100°C is important when we cook (eggs, pasta, rice). When does that matter on the scale being used? Someone else mentioned this, but I've never known anyone to be taking direct measurements of these things when cooking aside from baking. It's pretty clear when water is boiling. > We can leave hands in water at 50°C. Above, it slightly start to cause burns. When has that been useful and dependent upon a temperature measurement (and thus a temperature scale)?
- Symbiote 4y ago
  You are putting far too much weight in arbitrary numbers, probably due to personal familiarity. 0°F is a big milestone? I'll claim 1°F should be the milestone instead, or -5.4°F, or 2.33333°F. 15°C or 12°C or something is an important temperature if you live in the tropics without a heating system.
  - wartijn_ 4y ago
    > You are putting far too much weight in arbitrary numbers, probably due to personal familiarity bmitc reacted to the comment that said "Temperature near 100°C is important when we cook (eggs, pasta, rice)." By asking when that info is important. They are not the one here that put weight in arbitrary numbers, at least in that last comment.
    - reacweb 4y ago

citrin_ru 4y ago

Freezing point being 0°C is handy because it is important to know when outdoor temperature crosses this point for multiple reasons - water is too common and important substance to ignore its properties. In Fahrenheit freezing point is a hard to remember value (for someone who used to Celsius). I see nothing special about -17.8°C +37.78°C range except that 37.78°C is very hot. But why 37.78 and not some other value? It is arbitrary. And -17.8°C is even more arbitrary - it is not the coldest weather in many northern regions.

tuyiown 4y ago

> But they usually directly map to average human experience. > they don't understand anything about non-metric units or their practicality. They don't see it the same way that you don't see that the units are totally irrelevant, the brain just have to form habits around the relation between the numbers and the world, but as soon as there are consistant and predictable, the extra effort or lack of doesn't change much about their practicality. The habits are formed early, and doesn't require any extra work once set. Having physical relationships between units without having to remembering ratios can be handy time to times, and for your entire life.

lewisflude 4y ago

Can you give an example of a non-metric unit that is more practical than it's metric counterpart outside of familiarity?

GuB-42 4y ago

Celsius is better for cooking, the Fahrenheit scale is better for hot weather, for colder weather, I prefer Celsius, around 0°C means water is freezing, so, snow, ice, etc... Feet or inches are, I think, a bit more human friendly than meters, but only when used by themselves, that factor of 12 is just weird in a base 10 system. I know that the argument is that you can divide by 3 and 4 easily, but when it matters, metric countries simply make standard sizes a multiple of 12 (ex:120mm). For volumes and weights, I find absolutely no redeeming feature to the imperial / US customary system. The kilogram is a perfectly fine unit, so is the liter, and that both are the same when we are weighing water is a very useful property. Because many things are around the density of water, you know that most things that fits in a 1L bottle weight around a kg, and you can often measure volumes with a scale without conversion. Metric is not the most practical for every single situation, but it is more practical when used as a whole, that is, when you need to deal with with several quantities at the same time (ex: masses and lengths). And there are everyday situation where it is simply better in my opinion, like cooking.

bmitc 4y ago
About as reasonable a take as you can get. Can you elaborate on the cooking though? I've seen that mentioned here a couple of times, and I'm not sure I follow. I'm from a Fahrenheit country and my wife from a Celsius country, and it's never caused any issues or confusion in the kitchen. But maybe you mean also for the volumetric measurements as well (or primarily)?
- GuB-42 4y ago
  It is not about confusion, it is about convenience. I like the idea that water boils at 100°C since it is maybe the most important temperature in cooking. I like the fact that I can measure 500mL of water on a scale as 500g (and other liquids with a small error). Small details that make it more convenient in metric. But there is something else, and I am asking you the question. Since you and your wife live in countries with different unit systems, isn't problem when doing each others recipes? I mean I live in Europe, and if the recipe calls for 4 ounces of butter, I don't have a 4 ounces stick of butter, I have a 125g stick, which is not exactly that. A quart of milk is not exactly the liter I have. And my oven doesn't do 350°F, it does 180°C which is not exactly the same. In the end, I will have to adjust the recipe to my standards, and things may be lost (or gained) in translation, but it won't be the same.

JKCalhoun 4y ago

U.S. Letter size could behave like A4 (root 2) if it were 8.5" x 12" ... not a huge stretch. (Or 7.75" x 11", approximately, if you prefer.)

talideon 4y ago
But then it wouldn't be US Letter. There are other paper sizes based around the A series that fit relate back to it as part of a geometric progression, which means stuff fits neatly together. For instance, the C and DL series, which are used for envelopes, with a C4 envelope being exactly the right size for a sheet of A4 paper.
- JKCalhoun 4y ago
  To be sure, but the point I was questioning was that A4 is too skinny for most use cases, that U.S. Letter was preferred in that regard. Adding 9% to the length of U.S. Letter doesn't seem to make it suddenly overly skinny. Bad for origami though. Ditto with regard to A4. :-)
  - talideon 4y ago
    Preferred by whom? I've never encountered a use case where A4 was too skinny. And it certainly never stopped anyone from making paper airplanes from whole sheets at school. A4 folds neatly to sheets of the same ratio, which is its party trick and why the DL and C series of envelopes are a thing.

EdwardDiego 4y ago

Not this crap again. Fahrenheit maps to your human experience because it's what you grew up with. To me, Celsius maps to my human experience, because it's what I grew up with. That's it. That's all it is, and that's the only reason you think it maps better.

SeanLuke 4y ago
No. Fahrenheit really is better than Celsius regardless of your reluctance to admit it. 1. 0 Fahrenheit is close to the typical minimum temperature, and 100 close to the typical maximum temperature, which can be tolerated by humans. Celsius 0 and 100 aren't even remotely close to this: it's surprisingly awful. 2. Fahrenheit has nearly twice the integer resolution of Celsius. This is particularly helpful in describing body temperature. 3. Celsius seems like it'd be useful in cooking but it is not really. Sure, 0 and 100 describe the boiling point and freezing points of water -- in Paris only -- but these are phase changes in water. Nobody says "now hold the temperature at 100C", because water naturally fixes to 100C the entire time it is undergoing its phase change. You don't need to measure it. And Fahrenheit's higher resolution is again very helpful. 4. Scientists don't use Celsius or Fahrenheit. They use Kelvin. Both Celsius and Fahrenheit convert to Kelvin with a linear transformation.
- Bakary 4y ago
  I have no problem believing that Americans find the Fahrenheit system intuitive, but you are failing to see that for metric users, Celsius is 100% intuitive. I know exactly what sort of clothes to wear for each gradation (assuming it's not something insane like -60C in which case I'm staying home anyway), whereas I genuinely cannot do the same calculus with just Fahrenheit, even taking into account the 0-100 concept of Fahrenheit, which is in itself busted in various regions from Canada to Saudi Arabia. I have to constantly remind myself of what Fahrenheit means, because I never grew up with it. This is a theory of mind issue.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    > for metric users, Celsius is 100% intuitive. For metric users, Celsius is 100% familiar. Intuitive means that there are a bunch of hints that can give you an idea of values that you don't know. The fact that 0° Fahrenheit is about as cold as you can easily stand and 100° Fahrenheit is about as hot as you can easily stand is something that gives you an intuition: if it's as hot as I can stand, it's about 100°, if it's as cold as I can possibly stand, it's about 0°. I can figure out intermediate values through converting my feelings into a percentage. You can of course do that with Celsius too, but Celsius hasn't been built around a range of human feeling, it's been built around the phase changes of water. You just have to remember the human comfort range in Celsius, do all the same calculations as above, multiply the result by the difference between your low human range and your high human range, then add that to your low human range to get an answer. There's no help, and it might as well be arbitrary.

Bakary 4y ago

I think this is a theory of mind issue. You are used to Fahrenheit intuition and living in the US, so people arguing against your perception seem to be bikeshedding or being willfully obtuse/superior. I can perhaps relate my subjective experience to better explain what's going on. I grew up with Celsius temperatures, so temperatures like 27C or -5C tell me exactly what I should wear when going outside. For Fahrenheit, even though we are told that it maps to human experience, I have to consciously try to remember what these 10F, 20F temperatures mean and often forget. The intuition just isn't there at all. For height, I'm used to the metric system, but I can also understand the imperial system in that specific area because of seeing so many discussions about it over the years. I actually learned to cook while in an Imperial zone, and now I am more used to certain temperatures in F. The reason people find it shocking, is that we are essentially forced to deal against our will with Imperial measurements, because the US is a powerful country. The annoyance has more to do with the sensation of being trapped by another culture and having to adapt to their way of life rather than the reverse.

Koshkin 4y ago

Pretty much the only reason I like the Fahrenheit scale, miles, inches and ounces seems to be that it’s something no one else uses. On the other hand, computers make calculations with these non-metric units just as easy, and precision-wise computers have no advantage to be taken from the base 10 anyway. (The fact that US is stuck with base 10 for numbers doesn’t mean much, as there always are ‘dozens’ and ‘scores.’)

BucketsMcG 4y ago

Maybe your experience maps to the 0-100 Fahrenheit scale, but mine certainly doesn't. Temperatures where I'm from are typically 5-25C, 0-30C at the extremes. So 41-77, or 32-86. So how's Fahrenheit a more useful scale there? And what if you're from, I don't know, Bangkok? The temperature range there is, generously, 80-95F. There are endless examples of where this argument doesn't stand up because the "averafe==ge human experience" is nothing like yours. But of course, it's more or less applicable in most of the US, so you imagine it's universal. Whereas, for the rest of us, 0 is cold, 10 is cool, 20 is warm, 30 is hot, and extrapolate from there. That's simple and relatable enough for me.