> I think the US should move to SI
F is a much better unit than C for everyday use.
F is a much better unit than C for everyday use.
People say this, and it confuses me.
Basically the only difference between the two is the absolute numbers and the resolution.
Regarding resolution, for me the difference between, say 22 C and 23 C isn’t consistently noticeable - it depends on what I’m wearing, my recent activity level, humidity, etc. having a finer resolution - i.e. between 72 and 73 F isn’t that useful. That is to say, I’d change my plans if it were say 8 C outside instead of 18 C, but I wouldn’t if it were 17 instead of 18.
Regarding absolute numbers - sure with Fahrenheit you don’t need to use negative numbers as much, but apparently you still need to across much of the US, and dealing with negative numbers is… fine? Having generally smaller numbers (i.e. most of Earth has natural temperatures of - 40 to +40) is probably better? And having that obvious distinction of when water freezes makes some sense maybe?
I honestly don’t thing either is particularly better for everyday use, it’s just that a lot of people are habituated to one or the other.
All nice whole round numbers.
- “It’s going to be in the 70’s”.
- “Nice!”
The precision is good too. A nice range in each block. And block crossover is fine.
- “Might hit the low 70’s later”
- “OK I’ll bring a packable hoodie.”
Honestly, you don't really need to, at least on a day-to-day basis. I grew up somewhere where it got <0F every year for like a week at a time. You will just colloquially refer to it as "below zero" which roughly translates into "yea f** that, we aren't going outside".
The only time I ever really remembered distinguishing between degrees below 0 was midwestern trash talk between e.g. IL, WI, MN, and ND. (If I remember correctly, ND wins on wind chill)
Probably the easiest measurement change to get used to. There's very little difference in actual practice.
C makes it easier to reason regarding freezing/boiling - it's simpler to think about if it's going to snow by relating it to 0 then 32. But that's about the only difference in day to day use I can think of.
I haven't heard any reason to prefer F over C however (unlike Feet for example).
here is a counter-anecdotal evidence I moved to the US 25 years ago, still hate F with passion
I gave it a serious go. After trying to get used to F for 20-some years, I went back and set all my thermometers and online weather maps to Celsius.
Farenheit is an absurdly bad scale choice. It is needlessly granular for everyday use and feels wholly arbitrary.
32 degrees is freezing, so how far is 19 F from freezing? 32-19 ... ummm 13 degrees and that is as far as 32+19 ... ummm 51 degrees ... what are we talking about? -10 and +10 Celsius ...
I still don't know if 120F would burn my hands or not, if 150 F scalds or not. I have no sense about temperatures above 100F (and that one only because it is a threshold for fever)
I don't see how C would be easier for that. How do you know if 49℃ burns or 66℃ scalds?
50, which is halfway between 0 and 100, so that, too, kind of makes sense.
It's more handy for cold weather because freezing is 0° (which is way less awkward than 32°), and it's more handy for cooking because boiling is 100° (which is way less awkward than 212°).
It's also nice that the human body temperature is a round 37° (rather than 98.6°).
For warmer weather, F and C are about the same to me. It's easy to remember that 20°C is perfect, 30°C is hot, and 40°C is miserable — just as it is easy to remember the equivalent 70°F, 85°F, and 100°F.
So I have found that C is better for day-to-day use, even though it's not what I grew up with and I have drastically less experience with it. All I needed was a little time to get used to it.
You're welcome.