people are saying this guy is just saying that because he's used to it but as a Canadian who decided to learn Fahrenheit at least somewhat (and am still not that familiar with it) I agree it's way better for describing weather than Celsius is
6 tweets · June 2021 · 6 likes · 0 retweets · read on Twitter
people are saying this guy is just saying that because he's used to it but as a Canadian who decided to learn Fahrenheit at least somewhat (and am still not that familiar with it) I agree it's way better for describing weather than Celsius is
what makes Fahrenheit better is not that "0 is really cold, 100 is really hot"—that's it arguing in Celsius's terms 🤦♀️ what makes Fahrenheit better is precision: "low 60s" describes a natural size of range that Celsius must call "16-18" "high teens °C" is too broad to dress by!
Having "temperature at which water freezes" as an obvious anchor point in Celsius is honestly pretty great for day-to-day life anywhere that freezes in winter, ngl. Were I starting over, I'd create a temperature system that has 0=water freezes, 200=water boils = best of both!
This system (literally Celsius×2) would have slightly larger degrees than Fahrenheit (which are Celsius×1.8). Unlike other excellent decimal metric units like kg, m, etc, the 0-100 scale doesn't do anything useful since you can't multiply or divide shit anyway!
I'm guessing that if the creators of Celsius had REALLY thought about the UX of their scale outside science, and simulated trying to use it in that context for a bit, they would have come up with the same thing I just did but alas,
ironically in Canada the main thing we still use Fahrenheit for after switching a few decades ago is cooking, which is chemistry and would be better handled with Celsius! like water-boiling temperature is straightforwardly relevant there, & differences of 2 degrees rarely matter