So you just never cook anything? Because if you cook, your scale is longer. You have to heat your oven to 350+ degrees, whereas I’m just putting it to 180. So the scale is actually “aligned closer with human-scale temps” whatever your brainfart can be interpreted to mean.
we spend 90% of our lives wandering around in a fairly narrow range of temperatures
You do. You. Just like you think your brainfart is in anyway an improvement instead of just silly rambling without any sense whatsoever.
I have never once cared about the actual temperature of that reaction
Because you don’t live in Peru or the bottom of the sea, so you don’t have to, because you know it’s always pretty much exactly 100 for you.
A person with a stroke could’ve written your comment and it would be none the better.
Not one of your arguments holds any water; Centrigrade is a smaller scale, and a more logical one. Standing naked outside, most people would have a fairly good guess on when it’s near or below 0c. Or as English actually says “freezing.” You couldn’t even tell 0 degrees Fahrenheit. Literally most people in the world have never even experienced such a temperature. I have. I’ve also experienced -40 (where they meet.)
How many days a year do you spend in 0f?
Because in my country being below zero is more common than not. Both C and F, moreso C though, as “it’s closer to a human scale”.
So F is wider, cooking temps are double that of anything in double digits, no-one can even tell where 0f is and 100f is very much not close to the warmest things we handle in our daily lives.
0-100c is quite simple. Over or under, don’t touch with bare skin. (For non cooks stay below 60c though or you’ll burn yourself)
But I don’t need to argue. The works decided long ago.
Lmao no disrespect intended but I hope you take a break for some self care, we’re on a meme post and I’m pitching a hypothetical temperature scale that will see zero implementation or adoption ever. I think it’s fun to play with and debate but there’s no need to get heated about it
That’s the problem; you’re not actually pitching anything. You’re badly rationalising why your personal preference would be objectively better, and labeling it in a pseudointellectual bullshit that doesn’t make any sense.
So you just never cook anything? Because if you cook, your scale is longer. You have to heat your oven to 350+ degrees, whereas I’m just putting it to 180. So the scale is actually “aligned closer with human-scale temps” whatever your brainfart can be interpreted to mean.
You do. You. Just like you think your brainfart is in anyway an improvement instead of just silly rambling without any sense whatsoever.
Because you don’t live in Peru or the bottom of the sea, so you don’t have to, because you know it’s always pretty much exactly 100 for you.
A person with a stroke could’ve written your comment and it would be none the better.
Not one of your arguments holds any water; Centrigrade is a smaller scale, and a more logical one. Standing naked outside, most people would have a fairly good guess on when it’s near or below 0c. Or as English actually says “freezing.” You couldn’t even tell 0 degrees Fahrenheit. Literally most people in the world have never even experienced such a temperature. I have. I’ve also experienced -40 (where they meet.)
How many days a year do you spend in 0f?
Because in my country being below zero is more common than not. Both C and F, moreso C though, as “it’s closer to a human scale”.
So F is wider, cooking temps are double that of anything in double digits, no-one can even tell where 0f is and 100f is very much not close to the warmest things we handle in our daily lives.
0-100c is quite simple. Over or under, don’t touch with bare skin. (For non cooks stay below 60c though or you’ll burn yourself)
But I don’t need to argue. The works decided long ago.
Lmao no disrespect intended but I hope you take a break for some self care, we’re on a meme post and I’m pitching a hypothetical temperature scale that will see zero implementation or adoption ever. I think it’s fun to play with and debate but there’s no need to get heated about it
That’s the problem; you’re not actually pitching anything. You’re badly rationalising why your personal preference would be objectively better, and labeling it in a pseudointellectual bullshit that doesn’t make any sense.
Edit oh and don’t get “heated” then…?