FiskFisk33

but I would argue that the range of 10 degrees Celsius is too broad to be useful in the same way.

As you might imagine I completely disagree.

For my purposes 20's, 30's, negative 10's and so on is perfectly good, and I would describe my purposes as human.

Again, this is based on your, and my, learned reference points. Of course you feel the scale of the farenheit is better suited for describing your life, those are your learned reference points.

I have my own learned reference points based on the Celsius scale I grew up with and, suprise suprise, to me they're superior.

Just look for the number 32 instead of 0.

Now you are almost arguing against yourself, I can use the same argument about body temperature, just look for 37 instead of 100

However they are different systems and they do have pros and cons.

And this is a pro for me where I live.

I never said otherwise and I totally agree.

Fahrenheit is more suitable for daily life

These don't square.
Celsius and farenheit is just as suitable for daily life. You learn your important reference points and go from there.

A) Fahrenheit has an appropriate level of granularity for humans

B) Fahrenheit has an intuitive frame of reference for humans

true.

Celsius [...] do not.

false.

Europeans get insanely defensive about stuff like this for no reason.

Be forewarned that I am willing to die on this hill, and any challenges to my position will result in increasingly large walls of text until you have conceded the point 😤

...

Unsafe, yes, instant death? no.

My point is self evident, you’re willfully ignoring it.

No it isn't. No I am not. In fact that argument is quite a big sign there's no actual evidence.
I am not trying to say Celsius is better than Farenheit. I however don't agree with your argument that F is somehow more suited to humans.

It is simply a question of which one you are used to, and have built up an internal system of references to. Just as you feel your references are self evident, I feel the same about Celsius.

Anything below 0F is really cold for a human

Anything below 10F is really cold for a human too, and so is anything below -10F what's your point?

100C is literally instant death.

While commonly between 80 and 100, finnish sauna temperatures up to 110°c are not unheard of.

Very hot, but definitely not even close to instant death.

the human frame of reference starts at -18 Celsius!

That makes no sense to me at all. what frame of reference? what happens at -18? Ive been out in temperatures both above and below that, yes its cold as fuck, but nothing special happens? If we move a bit further north here they'd call me a wuss, and tell me real cold starts at -30.

you're going to have to use negative numbers to describe the temperature.

I find that really useful actually! Our world is made of water. In winter time here, temperatures above 0 means the snow will be soggy and wet, negative temperatures means it won't.

if the temperature was above 0 but has now dipped into the negatives, beware of ice when walking or driving.

You can use all the arguments you want, the truth is either system is perfectly useful for human day-to-day use if you are used to it.

The best system, for you, will always be the one you grew up with

Yet people live in negative farenheit conditions.

Try telling a northern siberian, who commonly see winter temperatures between -50 and -100 fahrenheit, that 0f is right about the limit for a human to tolerate...

It would be interesting to see what in an alternate timeline, English would have looked like today if the Norman invasion never happened.

Hunter, werehunter, wifhunter. fun!

the real question is how are we going to refer to male wolves?

And 0f is close to salted ice. good system, very human.

Celcius is how I "feel", because that's the scale I've learned and can relate to.
Farenheit is what you "feel" for the same reason.

It's not because one is intrinsically better linked to our bodies.