W Celsius
-
That's the whole point, the recipes aren't in oz and pounds, they're in cups and table/teaspoons
Sounds like a issue with American cook books then ngl, you can also get defined standardised cul &tbsp scoops.
-
As you approach 0°F it is getting dangerously cold. As you approach 100°F it's getting dangerously hot. Celsius is obviously better scientifically, but fahrenheit is pretty reasonable for everyday use (unlike other imperial measurements).
0°F is way colder than 100°F is hot.
There are hardly any population centers that reach the lower temperature while there's a shitton of them that reach the hotter one. That should say enough about how dangerous and inhospitable each is.
-
Meanwhile, me counting to 4 in base two using my fingers.
-
Come up with a metric time system then. Also, fix the damn calendar.
Also, fix the damn calendar.
The calendar has been intentionally mangled to obscure the solstices, equinoxes, etc. for the sake of religion. The shitty and arbitrary nature is a feature, not a bug. It's emphasizes hegemonic control of our lives.
A similar thing is happening with time where solar noon, sunrises, and sunsets are obscured for the sake of capitalist work clocks.
The system doesn't want our lives based on the natural world around us. It wants control.
They're never going to "fix" this because it already works as designed.
-
because celcius is about how aater feels, faranheit is about how you feel and kelvin is about how atoms feel
I feel like faranheit is trash.
-
How do you define inch without metric units? How much is that?
Measure your foot and divide it by 12.
-
How do you define inch without metric units? How much is that?
How do you define a metric unit without other units... by using universal constants. All units are defined by the universal constants.
-
This post did not contain any content.Αυτή η δημοσίευση έχει διαγραφεί!
-
This post did not contain any content.
In my opinion, Fahrenheit is a much better system for weather. Anything below 0°F and above 100°F is actively dangerous for a person to exist in. Anything in between is just normal weather. For anything scientific, I think K makes more sense than C. To me, C is actually only rarely useful.
Edit, because people seem to be offended by the suggestion that the system they don’t use is more practical in a very specific context:
What you are used to is definitely best for you, but I’m talking about the general practicality and usefulness in specific contexts. C in the context of states of water makes sense, and is practical and useful. F in the context of weather makes sense, because 0 to 100 is just normal weather in places with four seasons. In the context of weather, it is both practical and useful. K is practical and useful in pretty much every scientific context. To say memorizing -17 to 38 vs memorizing 0 to 100 is the same is silly, because 0 and 100 are very meaningful to the human mind. Of course, what you are used to will be what your mind immediately goes to, it does not change the fact that 0°F to 100°F for weather is more understandable, 0°C to 100°C for freezing and boiling water is more understandable, and 0°K being truly no thermal energy with units the same size as C is better for scientific contexts.
-
0°F is way colder than 100°F is hot.
There are hardly any population centers that reach the lower temperature while there's a shitton of them that reach the hotter one. That should say enough about how dangerous and inhospitable each is.
That’s not true. NYC frequently reaches 0°F and is home to 15 million people. All of northern US, and all of Canada frequently reach 0°F. It’s a fact than anything below 0°F is actively dangerous and anything above 100°F is actively dangerous.
-
Fahrenheit was set to 0 on the lowest temperature someone could achieve at time. And 100 was set to the body temperature of the human body. Totally two comparable points of measurement.
It's not the coldest someone could achieve at the time. It was chosen because it's a reliable low temperature that will consistently be produced by a particular brine solution.
Celsius uses the melting point of water as 0.and then uses, revolutionary, the same water when it changes its state from liquid to gas.
That doesn't really make it better, does it? How does that make it better? It sounds like it makes it better, but functionally what's better about it? What functionally is made superior by defining it as two stages of one thing rather than stages of different things? As long as the temperatures are reliably reproduced, it's functionally the same. Sure, being a measure of water does make it more useful when you care about water (at sea level, and only at sea level), as I said before. It doesn't generally make it better though.
It is better because it uses 2 times water as reference point.
Not one thing and then a completely different one.
We could for example set the 0 degrees at the freezing point of alcohol and 100 at the boiling point.
Or 0 at the boiling point of argon and 100 at the temperature it turns into plasma.
Both of these fictional scales are better than Fahrenheit.
-
I'd be a big fan of fractional metric.
Although if we really wanted to go crazy (this will never happen), we'd ditch base-10. It's a stupid base that we only use because of our fingers. Base 12 is superior and is actually the strongest defense of feet and inches (though yards can fuck right off). It has 6 divisors whereas 10 only has 4.
Base 60 is also cool (divisible by 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 20, 30, and 60), but that would also be significantly more difficult to teach children - it takes them long enough to learn the order of 26 letters.
And being a geographer, I adore 360 because it's fucking awesome to work with, and you don't get a better composite until 2520, which is just too much to deal with.
yeah, a duodecimal metric system would have been better. Still, it's more important to have a standard system than it is for it to be ideal. It's the strongest argument for US customary system within the USA, as well - but that argument breaks down when you widen the scope to the world.
In the 18th century context, and its dozens of competing measurement systems, something like the metric system was sorely needed just for standardization. We're just lucky that it was something more or less sensible. Had the US customary system won out, I think we'd be objectively worse off.
So it could have been better, but it could also have been MUCH much much worse.
-
I wouldn't actually be surprised if chocolate bars are that exact. The equipment to do it is easily available, and they would be motivated to buy it to save having even 1 extra gram in the package.
True that, especially as they shrinkflate it. A chocolate bar is usually 50-60g these days. Used to be 71g as I was a kid. Gee I wonder where that number came from...
I've heard that one of the reasons that metrification didn't take off in the States was that when they converted highway signs, they rounded down instead of up, so people got mad at "losing" a couple km/h. Tactical error, there.
-
Your cheese guy? You may be doing life better than me.
hahah, there's a small deli up the road and the same guy runs the counter most of the time.
-
This post did not contain any content.
0 C being the temperature water freezes is useful for knowing if there is ice outside, which has practical use. If we keep going the way we are, soon 100 will be an indicator that there is no water outside. Practical if you're a hydrophobe or hydrophile.
-
This post did not contain any content.
212 warm / 100 warm
warmMeme was made by a space shuttle tile.
-
In my opinion, Fahrenheit is a much better system for weather. Anything below 0°F and above 100°F is actively dangerous for a person to exist in. Anything in between is just normal weather. For anything scientific, I think K makes more sense than C. To me, C is actually only rarely useful.
Edit, because people seem to be offended by the suggestion that the system they don’t use is more practical in a very specific context:
What you are used to is definitely best for you, but I’m talking about the general practicality and usefulness in specific contexts. C in the context of states of water makes sense, and is practical and useful. F in the context of weather makes sense, because 0 to 100 is just normal weather in places with four seasons. In the context of weather, it is both practical and useful. K is practical and useful in pretty much every scientific context. To say memorizing -17 to 38 vs memorizing 0 to 100 is the same is silly, because 0 and 100 are very meaningful to the human mind. Of course, what you are used to will be what your mind immediately goes to, it does not change the fact that 0°F to 100°F for weather is more understandable, 0°C to 100°C for freezing and boiling water is more understandable, and 0°K being truly no thermal energy with units the same size as C is better for scientific contexts.
In my opinion C and F are equally good for everyday use. Neither is better than the other. Although C is more "scientific" than F, it's still a very much arbitrary scale at the end of the day. Knowing water freezes at 0C is not different at all than knowing it freezes at 32F for the purposes of knowing you might have ice on the road. Knowing 35C is hot weather is no different than 100F. The human mind can adapt to each of them just as easily as the other. Neither of them makes your life harder or easier than the other.
-
In my opinion C and F are equally good for everyday use. Neither is better than the other. Although C is more "scientific" than F, it's still a very much arbitrary scale at the end of the day. Knowing water freezes at 0C is not different at all than knowing it freezes at 32F for the purposes of knowing you might have ice on the road. Knowing 35C is hot weather is no different than 100F. The human mind can adapt to each of them just as easily as the other. Neither of them makes your life harder or easier than the other.
For normal weather, 0°F to 100°F is easier to understand than -17°C to 38°C. Just like 0°C for freezing water and 100°C for boiling water is easier to remember. It’s just how our brains work. We like nice round numbers. Plus, there’s a higher fidelity between 0 and 100 than between -17 and 38.
-
If you think Imperial is a better system, you're the perfect example of the American education system at work.
In case those were too many words...
You stupid.
The American education system taught us metric and was quite clear that's the standard. I'm pretty sure it's the only unit we used. It's also the standard within our government, as I'm sure you've heard plenty of times in threads like this.
The thing that entrenches Imperial units in our culture is the familiarity from us steeping in it in everyday usage. And we are exposed to both there, too. It's not about being stupid. It's just about inertia, and that's at least in part because the two systems do have their little trade-offs.
This always appears to come up from people who most likely are at least familiar with multiple languages. Why not just standardize on English? Did your education system just fail you? Was that too many words for you? (Obviously not. All intended rhetorically.)
I know US culture is struggling with a current of anti-intellectualism, but if you indulge in reducing nuanced topics to "America stupid", you're just watering the weeds in your own garden.
-
No no no... Tell us what happened to the egg
It... Got hard
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Εγγραφή Σύνδεση