W Celsius

I got used to Celsius while living abroad in Europe and Japan and prefer it to Fahrenheit. The extra granularity of the latter scale doesn't really add much more utility.

However, while 32 F and 212 F are pretty arbitrary, so is calibrating to the freezing and boiling temperatures of water. I'd rather have a scale that's calibrated to humans rather than H2O.

Ok Kevin

I mean it's easier if you get used to using it. If you just use Celsius then it's confusing and counterintuitive

There was something I read once upon a time that was like:

F is how hot/cold people are
C is how hot/cold water is
K is how hot/cold matter is

I feel like that's pretty accurate.

The second is the metric time system: A day is 86.4 kiloseconds!

Jokes aside the French did come up with Decimal Time (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_time), but it didn't catch on.

Anything below 10°F is actively dangerous. Anything above 110°F is actively dangerous.

NYC barely ever reaches 0°F according to this site:

https://www.extremeweatherwatch.com/cities/new-york/lowest-temperatures-by-year

Seriously, NYC is closer to having regular 100°F weather than 0°F and it is in the Northern US!

In other terms: -18°C is extremely fucking cold, 38°C is just regular hot.

Yeah sorry, I was trying to expand on what you were saying, not refute it

We do, but centimeters are in a weird spot. In general they are just a bit too small to be used in place of inches and too big to be used when you need millimeters. Also, inches easily go into feet which then go into yards. Probably the closest function to that would either be decimeters or fractions/decimals of a meter but that doesn't really feel great either. There's also something to be said about functional accuracy; for measurements that don't have to be exact imperial units feel pretty good. For example, I might say that a cardboard box is about 1cubic foot if it looks about 1 ft in length on each side. If I instead used meters, 1 ft is about 30 cm (30.48 cm) or 0.3 m which would translate to 27,000 cubic cm or 0.027 cubic m. You might round that 0.027 to 0.025 or 0.03 cubic m depending on if it's more or less than but it's still feels like a weird unit for our rough approximation.

Another quick example, my foot size is approximately a foot in length and I paced off a room at 10ft x 20ft so the area is about 200 sq ft. The equivalent would be that my foot is approximately 0.3 m so 10 steps x 0.3 m x 20 steps x 0.3 m = 18 sq m.

Imperial units work well when you want to use relatively small whole numbers and high accuracy isn't super necessary, but ultimately it just comes down to preference.

That's 4%, that's not a significant amount for functional purposes and it's a whole number to whole number conversion. Most of the time, if I'm converting, it's from metric to imperial so 1 km is 0.62 miles. If you tell me the speed limit is 70 km/h it's way easier for me to calculate 70 ÷ 5 x 3 = 42 mph than to calculate either 0.62 x 70 or 70 ÷ 1.6 = 43.49.

Below 0 ice, above 0 no ice

Burgerperson here, metric should be standard

A sugar cube is a gram. That'll get you close enough.

Never too late to catch on.

That goes in line with what I was saying. F makes sense for weather, and not much else. C makes sense for states of water, and not much else.

I grew up in Rochester NY, and there are many days with a zero or subzero windchill. Once it gets below 0°F, it is definitely actively dangerous. I’ve waited for a school bus in 7 to 10°F weather without issues.

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.

And that is shown by the markings.

I just looked one up, it's less than 20€, 0,02mm of precision. There are just 4 markings between 1mm and the next.

So instead of 9 markings, each marking adding 0,01mm, you just add 0,02mm. Doesn't sound complicated at all.

I haven't found an analog one, but a digital one with 0,01mm of precision costs 30€. Maybe an analog one costs 50€.

So if adding 0,02 is too complicated, you can just buy a 0,01 one for 30€ more. Which is the price of a pizza for a tool that will last years.

Anything more precise than 0,01. You probably have a lot of experience using a caliper. Whatever method it uses to display that precision is gonna be second nature.

europeans too. why are monitors and TVs in inch

Except it isn't: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_cube

Yes, but by recording your measurements as being precise to the neareat 1/5th you're saying they're precise to the nearest 1/10 if you record it with decimals unless you add a qualifying statement.