1362
measuring rule (lemmy.blahaj.zone)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Fal@yiffit.net 16 points 7 months ago

The temperature measurement is true though. F describes the temperature scale that humans interact with much better than C does.

[-] Slowy@lemmy.world 42 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Kind of, but not really. 0F doesn’t mean anything special in relation to human interaction, it relates to the freezing point of some random salt and water mixture (not seawater). 32 is a random number for the freezing point of freshwater which humans do care about, and 212 is nonsense for boiling temp of water which humans also care about and routinely use. The only part pertinent is that 100 is close to, but higher than human body temperature, but not quite where it counts as a fever… just the temperature of a sub-feverish human… how is that helpful! Sorry I really don’t care for the Fahrenheit system and I’m prepared to die on this hill

[-] MidRomney@lemmy.world 11 points 7 months ago

0 F is really cold to a human (but still livable), and 100 F is really hot to a human (but still livable). I honestly don't really care what temperature water boils at in my every day life. I know that if I put fire under a pot of water, it will boil eventually. Why would I need to know the exact temperature?

[-] taaz@biglemmowski.win 12 points 7 months ago
[-] DeepFriedDresden@kbin.social 13 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Do you add pasta when the water is boiling or do you add pasta when it's 100°C? Because right now the boilng point of water for my location is 95.23°C. If I were to go skiing and wanted to boil some instant Ramen does it matter that the boiling point is 90.04°C in Leadville, CO? Or do I just put some water on the stove and wait till it boils?

[-] SnipingNinja@slrpnk.net 4 points 7 months ago

Coffee brewing, if I used boiling water my coffee would taste "burnt", but if I use 80°C or so of hot water, it tastes perfect.

[-] Sagifurius@lemm.ee 2 points 7 months ago

huh. I use an expensive coffee maker precisely because it heats just shy of boiling, 202 degrees/like 94c, and it turns out way better coffee than the 85 ish degree machines.

[-] SnipingNinja@slrpnk.net 2 points 7 months ago

Depends on your coffee, brewing method, etc

For coffee machines the temperature doesn't matter as much, but for pour over, and some other filter coffee methods it can be important to measure water temperature.

[-] Sagifurius@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

It absolutely matters, it's why I paid so much. Walmart was selling a 50 dollar machine did the same thing, but the machines broke inside of 2 weeks. It made such good coffee I just returned it over and over till the customer service lady told me (she knew my name at this point) they'd returned what was left of the pallet. 300 dollar Zojirusha does the same thing and its a few years old now. Tried a few machines in between, just made mud it felt like, I've been ruined for crappy coffee tolerance.

[-] SnipingNinja@slrpnk.net 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Fair enough, there actually are a lot of terrible coffee machines available, especially in the US I guess. I am much more limited in what I can get, and so I end up having to do a lot more research (I do mean months of research), especially as the culture here is different for purchasing and returning things.

[-] Sagifurius@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago

I'm not American, did some research, ordered it off Amazon.

[-] SnipingNinja@slrpnk.net 1 points 7 months ago

You mentioned Walmart, so I assumed that, sorry.

[-] Fal@yiffit.net 8 points 7 months ago

Explain how it's useful in cooking. Considering it doesn't actually boil at 100 degrees unless there's very specific environmental conditions

[-] Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca 11 points 7 months ago

Hard disagree. 0°F is colder than the pont it stopped being cool, but not yet really cold. 100°F is many degrees into dying of melting, but also a few degrees short of a fever worth noting.

I don't think I've ever seen either 0°F or 100°F used in any way to refer to actually temperature. It's always defining the scale or comparing to °C. Maybe once when checking for a fever.

[-] Fal@yiffit.net 4 points 7 months ago

I don’t think I’ve ever seen either 0°F or 100°F used in any way to refer to actually temperature. It’s always defining the scale or comparing to °C. Maybe once when checking for a fever.

What? Are you actually from somewhere that uses F? Because what kind of argument is this? You're saying that 0F isn't "really cold"? That's a very specific take likely based on the very specific region you live in. The vast majority of the world would call 0F "really cold".

And likewise, as someone from arizona, 100F is hot but not "really hot". That doesn't start until after 110 or 115. So in general, out of the entire world, 0-100 is a pretty good range of "really cold" to "really hot". Only the people who live in the specific places that regularly get much colder or hotter actually care. To most people, it doesn't really matter if it's 0 or -10 or -15, it's all too fucking cold. Just like to you 100 or 110 or 115 doesn't matter, it's all too hot.

[-] Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca 2 points 7 months ago

The limits of "hot" and "cold" change with location and personal experience. 0°F is shorts weather for some, while 70°F is jacket time for others. Both live in my neighborhood.

There are hundreds of millions of people who see negative double digits every year, and billions of people who have never seen snow (Mumbai has never seen below 50°F!). There is no scale that can claim to cover human's experience of temperature in general, but some scales can be useful.

The exact numbers don't matter to people anyway, no one sees 70°F and estimates 70% hot, just like most of the world knows what 22°C means, even if it never freezes there. We could measure in yoctojoules (40.7) or simply relative to what the pope feels is hot and cold (85?). For daily use all temperature scales are arbitrary. Why not use one that's useful?

[-] Fal@yiffit.net 1 points 7 months ago

0°F is shorts weather for some

Only for those with medical issues or those being obstinate. It's not a relevant data point when trying to agree on a scale. 99.9% of people will agree 0F = cold as fuck.

There are hundreds of millions of people who see negative double digits every year

So? The difference between 0F and -10F and -25F aren't THAT significant. The VAST majority of people will treat those temperatures as similar unless they're preparing for an outdoor adventure or something. But the difference between 65 and 75 is HUGE to most people that WILL impact how they prepare for interacting with the environment.

For daily use all temperature scales are arbitrary. Why not use one that’s useful?

This is just not accurate and is pure cope. A scale that's 0-100 for the most important temperatures that humans interact with is an objectively good scale. With 10 degree bands that align pretty well to general human comfort and indicate the type of preparation required. Sure, some people might consider 60s t-shirt weather, but the point is the band is still relevant. 60-70, 70-80, 80-90. Those are useful, meaningful temperature ranges where the temperature inside those bands is similar enough

[-] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

0 F is really cold to a human (but still livable), and 100 F is really hot to a human (but still livable)

Oh wow two numbers with a really fuzzy meaning, how convenient

I honestly don’t really care what temperature water boils at in my every day life

How about freezing? Super useful info in places that have snow and ice

load more comments (37 replies)
load more comments (105 replies)
this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2023
1362 points (99.9% liked)

196

15695 readers
1 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS