• Gray@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I mean - boiling is boiling, right? Do you ever really need to measure whether your water is boiling in daily life? I would concede that it’s useful to know more easily when water will freeze when it comes to the weather. It’s really the higher end of the Celsius scale that I’m critical of. Fahrenheit could share Celsius’s 0 and my criticism would be more toothless. Though Fahrenheit’s logic around 0 is that anything below 0 weather-wise is exceedingly rare and momentous in northern climates. I think that makes sense as an argument. Negatives in Celsius are common (at least in North America), but a negative in Fahrenheit is mouth gaping dreadful levels of cold. That’s at least as intuitive to me as having 0 be freezing. Since 0 implies the bottom of the temperature scale.

    • gonzo0815@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s intuitive for you, but things are intuitive if you grow up with it. Fahrenheit is anything but intuitive for me, even if, thanks to the internet, I’ve been confronted with it for years now.

    • Darukhnarn_normal@lemmy.fmhy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Both got their pros and cons in day to day life. It’s about getting used to it. The switch to scientific applications is easier with Celsius however….

    • Swedneck
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      But the point of the reference values is to be… referencable…

      How do you reference 0F? Referencing 0°C is trivial albeit not strictly accurate, and 100°C is equally trivial though only accurate to within like 5 degrees.

      And this isn’t a theoretical issue, it’s fundamentally useful to be able to double check that a thermometer is at least roughly correct.