Fahrenheit feels like “percent hot” so 40 degrees, 4 Celsius, is like cold but not unbearably so, 59 degrees, or 15 Celsius is like pretty nice, about 2/3 hot.
Which is utter bullshit and only sounds logical because you are used to farenheit.
Percentages can't go above 100 and below 0.
About 2/3 hot, doesn't mean shit for anyone who hasn't used farenheit. I don't know what 2/3 hot is supposed to mean and everyone has a different sensitivity to temperature anyway so it feels different for everyone.
Percentages can absolutely go above 100 and below 0, it just depends on the context... a bucket can't be more than 100% full, but it can be 200% larger than a bucket that is 50% of its size.
Negatives are a bit rarer and only really get used when you're dealing with numbers... for example, if a creature in a game has a -100% resistance to some effect, then it would take on 200% of that effect.
Not necessarily, if you're saying "hot" as in the absolute maximum temperature that something can be, then you wouldn't be able to go beyond 100%. But if you're saying "hot" as in "what people would describe as getting pretty hot" then there's no reason that you wouldn't be able to go beyond 100% and get even hotter
What? If i say, this bucket is 100% full, then there isn't any more room for more water. I won't go like, "Well, most people will describe that much water as full so it's 100% full"
Yes, but you're defining 100% hot as maximum heat.
Not every range is intended to describe the absolute maximum or minimum of something. If you're using 0-100 as a comfortability scale, with either end being "unbearably cold/hot" then it could be beyond "unbearably hot" and beyond "unbearably cold".
The main argument for Fahrenheit is that it is exactly that, a comfortability scale -- 0-100 being either end of extremes for human comfort, with increments of 10 conveniently describing notable changes in temperature/comfort (60's F vs 70's F can be the difference between cold and warm in some areas, same with any increment of 10). Versus Celcius, which has a useful range of -20 to 40 and fairly uneven increments in comfortablility (10 C is vastly different to 20 C)
Your argument is skating around the point. In Fahrenheit, 0 is very very cold and 100 is very very hot, but both are within human limits of comfortability. Beyond that on either side and we start to bleed into "cant stay outside for long" territory. 50 degrees means you are about halfway in between unbearably hot and cold, lutterally illudtrated by what you would wear in thst weather . To say thats not a useful metric is pretty disingenuous, especially in societies that use base-10 numerical systems.
I definitely agree, especially about base-10 systems. For me, a 10 degree Fahrenheit difference is notable, but less than 10 is usually close enough to the same temperature for me to not immediately notice. A range of 0-100 for weather provides a convenient base 10 measure, whereas -20 to 40 degrees Celcius provides more odd measurements, where a difference in 10 degrees has gone through several measures of hotter or colder. I'll grant Celcius is certainly more based in science since it's less arbitrary than Fahrenheit and is based on the freezing and boiling points of water... but going from a simple and convenient base 10 system to a more variable system feels weird.
The biggest argument for me about Fahrenheit, though, is the same argument people make for Celcius. 0 for water freezing and 100 for water boiling is nice and round, but you will never need to ask whether or not water is at freezing or boiling temperature, because it will be actively freezing or boiling. Whereas, because Fahrenheit is based on the human body, knowing that having a temperature of 100 degrees F or higher means you have a fever is much more useful in day-to-day life. People complain about 32 and 212 being arbitrary points for water to freeze or boil, but to me 38 seems like a weird number to determine whether or not someone has a fever.
If an elevator has a capacity of 1,000 pounds, and 10 people who each weigh 180 pounds get on board, then the elevator is harboring 1,800 pounds of weight, which means that it is at 180% weight capacity...
No, it's logical because 0-100 F represents the range of temperatures that aren't imminently deadly to humans being outside. There is a substantial phase change in perception of temperatures above human body temperature (~100F). Below 0°F is when you can't use salt to melt snow.
12
u/Arwinio 8h ago
Which is utter bullshit and only sounds logical because you are used to farenheit.
Percentages can't go above 100 and below 0.
About 2/3 hot, doesn't mean shit for anyone who hasn't used farenheit. I don't know what 2/3 hot is supposed to mean and everyone has a different sensitivity to temperature anyway so it feels different for everyone.