>>2155992> Fahrenheit has not even twice the resolution of celsiusI knew you'd fixate on the resolution. It's not a big deal, it's just yet one more thing where F kicks the shit out of C. Each F degree is a usefully sized value. F deciles are literally a 1-10 scale rating how hot it is outside, and this is the most common way to express the weather in everyday language (eg "60s and 70s today, perfect summer hiking"). You can't do that with C. Each C degree is too big, each decimal C is too small. Again, not the main point though. You should stop posting until you understand my next point:
>As for the rest - putting 0 at some random temperature rather than freezing is indefensible.They aren't random temperatures. They are calibration points. A big problem redditors have is erroneously on the accuracy of the calibration points themselves and what they are "supposed" to represent, rather than considering the utility of the resulting calibration. This is especially true with weather as there are always too many confounding variables to ever really care about an exact point on the scale. I've seen snow at temperatures above freezing and I've seen rain below freezing.
The lower calibration (0) is close to the air temperature where frostbite risk begins.
The upper calibration (100) is close to the air temperature where heat stroke risk begins.
Again, many variables, so the exact points are less important than the fact that they denote extremes of habitable human air temperatures.
> That's probably the single most important point for anyone living in a place where freezing happens.Check out the picture. Pretty neat huh. Somehow the non-reddit-approved not-sufficiently-scientific lower calibration point just happens to coincide with the temperatures where it's dangerous to be outside.
