That’s not what I’m saying at all. I’m saying that a system where the majority of air temperatures in the vast majority of the country fall between 0 and 100 is slightly more convenient than one in which they fall between -17 and 37. 0 is really cold it doesn’t frequently get colder than that in most of the country. 100 is really hot, in most places it doesn’t get hotter than that.

Feet are slightly more convent for declining human sized things because meters are just a little too big to describe human height and centimeters are a bit you

If you were designing a system to describe humans with no other consideration you’d probably pick one where 10 units was the average human height. And feet is closer to that than meters. Also you can divide 12 by 6 and 3.

I’m not saying that customary is superior just that it does has certain advantages.

Saying "I'm 5 feet 11 inches" requires about 3 digits, saying "I'm 180cm" also requires that many digits. It takes about as many syllables as well, because in practice you say "five-(feet)-e-leven" or "one-eighty" (Note that I don't know how to say US customary units out loud)

(it's actually five-foot eleven inches, to add to the confusion)

Was in Fairbanks last weekend and it was -15F. So, having Fahrenheit staying positive for weather in US, is not really an argument. I am fine with Celsius based on water (0 freezing and 100 boiling). But I get that changing is confusing when you have adjusted your whole life to a system. If taught at school and displayed, in half a generation we could move to metric. Like others said groceries are already there.

No one is arguing that temperatures never go outside of 0-100. The argument is that a scale that generally falls between 0-100 is inherently slightly more convenient than that that generally falls between -17 and 37.

Obviously both can be adapter to.

But if you took a group of aliens and asked them to come up with a temperature scale that was only used to convey how cold or warm the temperature felt to humans, they would almost certainly use human body temperature in their design process not the freezing and boiling points of water.

This isn’t to say that Celsius isn’t perfectly fine and superior in most ways. I’m not insulting you or attempting to participate in some kind of culture war.

But if you find yourself unable to agree that one system has some inherent advantages over another, even if they don’t outweigh the disadvantages, you should step back and think a little more objectively.

> The argument is that a scale that generally falls between 0-100 is inherently slightly more convenient than that that generally falls between -17 and 37.

I guess it is true for us living in US, but lots of people live in places where it never goes below 0 Celsius (32 F). So I could see them arguing the same with a 0-50 scale.

> But if you took a group of aliens and asked them to come up with a temperature scale that was only used to convey how cold or warm the temperature felt to humans, they would almost certainly use human body temperature in their design process not the freezing and boiling points of water.

Probably, even though they might just get the coldest (-128 F -89 C) and hottest (134 F 56C) temperatures on earth, and scales it from 0-100 so everyone is covered.

You're just saying this because you're American and accustomed to it.

To you, a 0-100 scale makes sense but to me it doesn't because 0f (-17c) is way rarer of a temp than 100f (38c).

Anyway, from the metric perspective, most people look at it like... 0 is coat and boots weather, + 10 degrees is jacket weather, + 10 degrees is t-shirt weather, and + 10 degrees is hot. IMO, using "freezing" as the reference kinda makes sense...

It should be noted here that the daily high for a good 1/3-1/2 of America is below 0C/32F/freezing for a good 3-5 months each year. Our weather varies much more significantly than most (not all) of Europe. Even with Fahrenheit, it is not uncommon for places like Detroit to be sub-zero for days without getting into positive temperatures.

I've personally lived in Marquette, Michigan and now live in Phoenix, Arizona and have experience both -40F(-40C) and 118F(47.7C). To me, the 0 = really cold, 25 = cold, 50 = mild, 75 = comfortable, 100 = really hot scale makes sense having lived through those extremes. But you're right, that's largely because it's what I grew up with. And with that in mind, it is extremely unlikely America would ever transition away from it for that very reason.

Both 0F and 100F happen regularly in many parts of the US and I would not say here one is rarer than the other. NYC has seen both in the last 12 months.

1 foot is the distance light travels in one nanosecond.

And 1/10 of an inch is a very common distance in electronics (PCBs)

> And 1/10 of an inch is a very common distance in electronics (PCBs)

I hope you can guess why that is, right? It could have just as well been .25cm instead.

Yeah but just saying we can't easily change it now.

You're suggesting it's not convenient to know when temps are below zero, or above. A quite critical distinction on the road actually.

Choose your poison.