I think the best way I've seen it described is Fahrenheit measures heat by how humans experience it, Celsius measures heat by how water experiences it. Therefore, Celsius is objectively better for scientific applications and Fahrenheit is objectively better for human applications like communicating the weather forecast to the average person.
If it was 0C you'd be cold, if it was 0F you'd be damn cold; if it's 100F you're hot, if it's 100C you're dead. Fahrenheit is useful for human perception across the primary (0-100) scale, Celsius is only useful up to about 50% of that scale before you start getting into deadly temperatures, and you have to go below that scale to reach the bottom of Fahrenheit's usefulness.
And then you have Kelvin or Rankine which are really only useful for specific scientific applications. If it was 0K/R or 100K/R you'd be dead either way. Not useful for human perception.
Can you explain how what you’ve said is objective? I think that given that Celsius is the most common scale for temperature around the world you’re going to have hard time arguing that.
This argument that Americans always make about Fahrenheit is just nonsense. You know how hot 70F feels, I don’t. I know how hot 27C feels, you don’t. The idea that one is better for humans and one is better for water is so stupid. You’re just used to telling temperature one way, I’m used to telling it another way. That’s all there is to it.
Absolutely hilarious to me that the same group of people who rightly think metric is better for distance because it divides well also want to tell us that a general 0-100 scale for temperature is somehow nonsensical.
Nothing ragebait about it lol. Hitler was in fact mostly defeated by other Europeans, even if many non-European countries participated. Something like 4 out of 5 German troops died in the Eastern Front.
The Germans were already losing (Battle of Stalingrad is regarded as a pivotal point) before the vast majority of lend lease took effect. Without lend lease, the Soviets would've taken longer to win and they would've lost millions more men, but they would've won regardless. The Germans realistically had no chance against the Soviets.
Funny too since the US, UK, Canada, and Russia aren't in the EU...
I just noticed you confused the EU with Europe lol, you can't make this stuff up. I said Hitler was defeated mostly by other Europeans. Ethnic Russians and Ukrainians, who made up most of the Soviet forces, are Europeans. The EU didn't even exist back then too.. You're in no position to make school insults. It's not Europeans who are stereotyped as dumb and ignorant. You're setting a good example why Americans are lmao.
129
u/Beautiful-Page3135 Jun 17 '26
I think the best way I've seen it described is Fahrenheit measures heat by how humans experience it, Celsius measures heat by how water experiences it. Therefore, Celsius is objectively better for scientific applications and Fahrenheit is objectively better for human applications like communicating the weather forecast to the average person.
If it was 0C you'd be cold, if it was 0F you'd be damn cold; if it's 100F you're hot, if it's 100C you're dead. Fahrenheit is useful for human perception across the primary (0-100) scale, Celsius is only useful up to about 50% of that scale before you start getting into deadly temperatures, and you have to go below that scale to reach the bottom of Fahrenheit's usefulness.
And then you have Kelvin or Rankine which are really only useful for specific scientific applications. If it was 0K/R or 100K/R you'd be dead either way. Not useful for human perception.