[hlidotbe]

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]

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]

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]

|{low, medium, high}| < |{0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9}|

where |s| := the cardinality of s

[derobert]

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.