xkcd makes me sad
- Thread starter evilmike
- Start date
figmentPez
Staff member
I made it up to 92 coins. I suspect there are at least 100.67 coins, 1120 seconds. Fuck the place is huge
If you want to know how many there are and the overview map of the world:
[DOUBLEPOST=1448463174,1448462996][/DOUBLEPOST]There's also a pan-able and zoomable map here:
http://codepen.io/KyleDavidE/full/605dc87b614ff6b2bd716f4c6f640203/
There are 169 coins.
http://codepen.io/KyleDavidE/full/605dc87b614ff6b2bd716f4c6f640203/
fade
Staff member
I still contend that while most SI units make sense, there's really nothing less arbitrary about C over F.
Also, Fahrenheit himself considered water for its obvious ubiquity, but chose alcohol intentionally over water because experimentation showed it was more stable over a wider range of contaminant levels.
Also, Fahrenheit himself considered water for its obvious ubiquity, but chose alcohol intentionally over water because experimentation showed it was more stable over a wider range of contaminant levels.
Fahrenheit is the better measurement because it is more indicative of human survival conditions in a range comfortable for reporting. Using boiling or freezing water as an indicator for this is a little silly.
There are plenty of times Celsius makes more sense. Weather reporting isn't one of them.
There are plenty of times Celsius makes more sense. Weather reporting isn't one of them.
"chance of freezing" is more useful /important than "t-shirt or sweater". "A range of numbers between -20 and 40" isn't harder than "a range of numbers between 0 to 100".
Celsius is already not really SI, that's Kelvin, and not using that makes perfect sense - "253 to 313" isn't very clear or practical.
My point isn't that you shouldn't use °F. I don't give a rat's ass. People using °F insist on trying to prove °C is somehow "worse", which it isn't. Look at the points made in that XKCD. Of those for °C, 4 of them are either personal, or irrelevant. Only "international standard" and "nice negative is freezing" can be sensible, and the first of those, only if you know the other person you're talking to is used to °C - if it's an American, that's not an issue. Of those in favor of °F, the first is useful, the second's personal, the third I honestly can't parse, the fourth isn't actually relevant at all, the fifth is the opposite of "international standard" in the °C list, meaning it's only true if you're talking to an American, but otherwise isn't. The sixth makes sense when comparing to Kelvin, but not really to °C, unless, again, you're American.
In all, the points are "a bunch of personal reasons, either it's obvious when it's freezing, or it's easier to gauge temperatures in between, and if you're talking to an American, you probably want to use °F, and otherwise, °C".
C is just inconvenient because it's so low resolution, and no one bothers with decidegrees C, because it's too high resolution. It's just as arbitrary as F, but F is simply more convenient. F rarely needs a decimal point, but C frequently does.
I don't care which someone uses as long as they use the correct notation, and I'll frequently include both because my audience includes people who prefer one over the other.
But arguing about which is better or worse is like arguing about how steak should be cooked.
And everyone reasonable, sane, intelligent, and of superior heritage and taste knows steak shouldn't be removed from the heat until it reaches an internal temperature of 165F (73.9C).
I don't care which someone uses as long as they use the correct notation, and I'll frequently include both because my audience includes people who prefer one over the other.
But arguing about which is better or worse is like arguing about how steak should be cooked.
And everyone reasonable, sane, intelligent, and of superior heritage and taste knows steak shouldn't be removed from the heat until it reaches an internal temperature of 165F (73.9C).
I've never used a decimal on °C for the weather in my life. For body temperature, sure, but then it's the opposite - centigrade is more precise than Fahrenheit.
You are a heathen and even too low to be considered for contempt, peasant. Anything over 145/60 makes a mockery of the fine qualities of steak.And everyone reasonable, sane, intelligent, and of superior heritage and taste knows steak shouldn't be removed from the heat until it reaches an internal temperature of 165F (73.9C).
Did you ever consider that this isn't a fault of the unit, but the antiquated fixation on base 10?
Ah, but in the case of body temperature we use a decimal and still have better resolution.
As far as the weather, sure, we all hand wave that, and the same could go for cooking. But when you set your environment temperature - thermostat in the home/office/car - are you suggesting that it reports only integer degrees Celsius, and allows you to only set integer degrees Celsius?
All the new ones that I see appear to support at least 0.5C steps, if not 0.2C or 0.1C steps, suggesting that the Celsius scale does lack the resolution sufficient to produce a reasonable temperature without that additional information.
Lacking resolution is why decimals were invented. Look at blood pressure - the US reports in 152/84, in Europe we generally use 15.2/8.4. (random example. I was going to use mine but I just took it and I doubt you'd like 19/15 as a normal example. Oops.). Either's ok and exactly the same. Kilometers lack resolution to express body height (I'm 0.00188 tall isn't efficient). Micrometer is too precise (I'm 1880000 µm). But centimeter (188) or decimeter (18.8) or meter (1.88) are all fairly equivalent as for ease of use. Just feet would lack precision (though saying you're 6.2 feet would be easier than the current 6-feet--2-inch[yes I'm aware those two aren't the same, shht]).
Both °F and °C are sufficiently precise for some aspects and can be fine-tuned for others.
As for thermostats, yes, admittedly - but I don't feel the difference between 21.2 and 21.3, and neither do you.
Both °F and °C are sufficiently precise for some aspects and can be fine-tuned for others.
As for thermostats, yes, admittedly - but I don't feel the difference between 21.2 and 21.3, and neither do you.
Yay! I win. C requires 3 significant digits in more common situations where F only requires 2.
I'm just arguing for no good reason anyway, I hope you aren't taking this seriously. I know I'm not.
GasBandit
Staff member
Fahrenheit's better for describing human comfort. A single degree of Fahrenheit definitely tells me something different about the outside, and each set of ten pretty much neatly lines up to a certain definition of Comfort. 30s is freezing, 40s is cold, 50s is chilly, 60 is cool, 70s is mild, 80s is warm, 90s is hot, 100s is punishingly hot. Each degree within those sets of 10 also conveys a palpable change in each order of magnitude. Celsius is clunky and inexact in comparison.
"personal opinion".
I hope you die, and all your children too*. Considering my point wasn't that °C's better, but that it's mostly a personal matter of taste and use, eh. It's Americans who can't seem to accept °C as a general norm and feel the need to fight over it every time. It's like vegans. °F is pretty much the only Imperial measurement that makes an ounce of sense, and they'll try and get every inch of use out of it they can.I'm just arguing for no good reason anyway, I hope you aren't taking this seriously. I know I'm not.
*You know, when you've all had long, healthy, full and interesting lives.
This temperature scale is so wrong, 60 is glorious. (As long as the sun is shining)
GasBandit an I agreed. This makes it FACT.
165 being, of course, the temperature that the USDA considers "safe" because it's the temp where most bacteria will die. But any sane person knows that in a fresh cut of steak, most of the bacteria will be on the surface, not the internal muscle fibers, and will die when you sear it, and thus it's perfectly ok to cook to an internal temperature of 125 with a 5-10 minute rest.And everyone reasonable, sane, intelligent, and of superior heritage and taste knows steak shouldn't be removed from the heat until it reaches an internal temperature of 165F (73.9C).
GasBandit
Staff member
Not the point!
That makes me think... At the risk of derailing into the political, what if, instead of one president, we dual-elect Sanders and Cruz, and no law, repeal, appointment or executive order goes into effect without BOTH signatures?
Or, we could just abolish all federal government, because just as much will get done.
A libertarian dream!Or, we could just abolish all federal government, because just as much will get done.
GasBandit
Staff member
Or, we could just abolish all federal government, because just as much will get done.
Ohhh yeahhhhh baby.
Heh, in all seriousness, though, like 80+% of all legislation gets passed with near unanimous support of both parties, it's just a handful of hotbutton issues that get all the press. This way, if they both sign off, you know it's something that is probably necessary.
Then again, The Iraq war and quantitative easing bills all had universal support, too, so maybe it's not as good a firewall as I initially thought.
GasBandit
Staff member
Nothing ever grew in my garden. Nothing.
Just one question, which one of them goes to hold the pass at Thermopylae?
figmentPez
Staff member
This really did make me sad....
“If you can read this, congratulations—the archive you’re you're using still knows about the mouseover textâ€!