• bi_tux@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    9 months ago

    for a moment there I didn’t get it, since it can’t possibly have 65° on a land that grows grass yet, then I realised you have never heared of Celcius

      • sqibkw@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Ok hear me out. I’ve lived in the US and in Europe, and while Celsius makes sense for all sorts of things (cooking, car engines, PC temps…), I think Fahrenheit actually makes a surprising amount of sense for climate, indoor and outdoor.

        While Celsius 0-100 is linked to the states of water, Fahrenheit is loosely a 0-100 on “how is this for a human to experience”. 0°F is sorta the limit of “dang that’s really cold” and 100°F is “dang that’s really hot.” And that’s the whole reason we look at the weather report.

        0-100°F also has more individual degrees than -18-38°C, and when a couple degrees can make a big difference for indoor comfort (or the heating bill), I appreciate more granularity.

        • I'm Hiding 🇦🇺@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          8 months ago

          0-100°F also has more individual degrees than -18-38°C, and when a couple degrees can make a big difference for indoor comfort (or the heating bill), I appreciate more granularity.

          Ah yes, because I’ve always found 16.5°C such a difficult concept. Decimal places are hard.

          I concede the “human” scale could be handy to some, but I mean - the civilised world uses metres, not feet - why should it be any different with temperature?