[troad]

Yes, it’s incredibly useful for outdoor temperature. 0 F means it’s very cold, 100 F means it’s very hot. Meanwhile, 0 C means it’s sort of a little cold, and 100 C means your eyes will melt.

I grew up with and actively use Celsius, but this instinctive disdain for other measurement systems leaves me… a little cold. It’s not even like Fahrenheit has weird non-decimal ratios. Save your mocking for the avoirdupois furlongs!

[Macha]

100C is also very hot.

What's your standard of too hot? Uncomfortably hot? From the climate I'm used to then 80F qualifies. I'm not sure 80F is any less arbitrary a threshold than 25C. Don't confuse "my personal range of comfortable temperatures goes from 0-100F" with "0-100F maps neatly to every person's preferred temperature range and therefore is an advantage to fahrenheit"

(and that's before we get into the effects of humidity, or if outdoors, windspeed, on perception of temperature)

Similarly, 0F is -18C. -18C in my country would be a minor disaster, given our historical low is -5C. Our usual yearly low is about 0C, and 0C is more logical here than 32F, with negative temperatures actually being exceptional

[troad]

I’m honestly unsure how personal preference enters into it. For the vast majority of the planet, within an acceptable margin of error, 0 - 100 F will be a useful temperature range for almost all naturally occurring outside temperatures.

As for personal preference, I think the first two thirds of that range are unbearable. I grew up in an subtropical area that regularly rises over 100 F in the summer. I don’t go around pretending that’s not hot though. It’s very hot! Unless you’re proposing different temperature scales for every climate, I’m unsure how your point about your local area is relevant. Surely people travel outside of your (and my) warm climate.

[nly]

I'm British. Let me give you some intuition.

30C+ is too hot to go outside.

20-30C is a hot summer.

12-20C is the rest of the year.

0-12C is jumper weather or freezing to death in your home, depending on whether you can afford your energy bill.

<0C is fucking Baltic.

[troad]

As I said, I grew up with and actively use Celsius, so I’m unsure why you’re explaining it in a reply to me. I’m also Australian, so your ranges are wildly off for my climate. Summers don’t get started until the 30 C days, and less than 20 C is the heart of winter.

Celsius has many strengths, and is obviously better suited for scientific purposes. Fahrenheit is handy for outdoor temperatures. That doesn’t mean Celsius is useless for those.

These turf wars are weird. A good engineer doesn’t spur different tools, for different tools have different strengths. I can immediately make sense of both systems, and I consider that to my advantage.

[bearmode]

It's literally no better for 'outdoor temperatures' in any way. Both F and C systems are effectively arbitrary. It's just about personal preference/what you grew up with.

[arlort]

> and is obviously better suited for scientific purposes

Celsius and Fahrenheit are equally arbitrary / bad for scientific purposes, Kelvin is the only scale that makes sense since it's zeroed at absolute zero. Celsius is only marginally better than Fahrenheit in that you mostly deal with temperature increments rather than absolute values and celsius increments are the same as kelvin increments

[piva00]

Celsius and Kelvin are the same scale with just different starting points for 0. So I wouldn't say it's on the same league as Fahrenheit for scientific purposes, you just need to sum/subtract -273.15 to convert. F to C or K is a much more cumbersome conversion comparatively.

[ChrisRR]

Unless you're northern in which case 0-12C is t-shirt weather

[xuki]

As someone from a tropical country, 0C is not a little cold and 100F is a normal day. As a universal unit, Celcius makes more sense because it can be defined easily.