|
|
|
|
|
by sarchertech
151 days ago
|
|
When defining a scale from scratch only for the purpose of defining how the temperature feels it a human, you don’t think human body temperature would factor in? > What are you even talking about? -17 is a complete irrelevance to me, it does not happen, It lines up with 0F, which in most of the US is about as cold as it gets. You could be more specific and lick the weight 95% percentile coldest yearly low and get -19 or -16 or something. The specific number is irrelevant. The point is that a scale where the daily values generally fall between 0 and 100 is something that most people would admit is a point in that scale’s favor. That doesn’t mean that Fahrenheit is better than Celsius. It does mean that there are objective advantages to it for some purposes. If you can’t sit down and analyze Fahrenheit, Celsius, and Kelvin and make a list of pros and cons for each, you’re just being stubborn. |
|
"most of the US" . And yet you think that a group of aliens looking at planet Earth would anchor on that region. This makes no sense. It is what I meant by "parochial".
> The specific number is irrelevant.
Lets set the zero point to an irrelevant number, it's be great!
> does mean that there are objective advantages to it for some purposes.
Sure, I agree. In some places.
> If you can’t sit down and analyze
I can. But if you don't know better than to avoid focussing on that, you're missing the mere familiarity that was emphasised repeatedly.