[kalaksi]

> Same with pounds, for example. A pound is 16 ounces, which can be divided 4 times without involving any fractions. Try that with metric.

Not sure if you're actually serious... 1 kg is 1000 g, dividing with 4 gets you 250 g, no fractions. And no need to remember arbitrary names or numbers for conversions.

> Then there's temperature. Fahrenheit just works more naturally over the human-scale temperature range without involving fractions. Celsius kind of sucks by comparison.

Again, I'm not sure I get it. With celsius, 0°C is freezing temperature of water and 100°C is boiling point of water. For fahrenheit it was something like 32 and 212? And in every day use, people don't need fractions, only full degrees. Celsius also aligns well with Kelvins without fractions (unlike fahrenheit).

[_0ffh]

> Celsius also aligns well with Kelvins without fractions (unlike fahrenheit).

But Fahrenheit aligns well with Rankine without fractions (unlike Celsius). [Imagine some symbol here indicating humour.]

[defrost]

I chuckled ... and yet remain on side with Celsius.

[PostOnce]

re: fahrenheit, it's utility is that 0 and 100 are near the extremes of human comfort. 0 = fuckin cold and 100 = fuckin hot

Whereas in C, 0 is fine and 100 means you died 50 degrees ago.

However, C is much more useful in industry, where boiling and freezing points are more important.

[kalaksi]

Ah, I see. Though, it's still useful that the relevant range isn't 0-100 but can go below zero since it's a significant change in weather conditions when we're below freezing point, but I get your point.

In the end, it's probably what one is used to. Temperatures here are typically between -20'C and +30'C.

[account42]

> Not sure if you're actually serious... 1 kg is 1000 g, dividing with 4 gets you 250 g, no fractions.

Dividing by four is not the same as dividing four times.

[its_magic]

> I'm not sure I get it

I'm pretty sure that you don't

[kalaksi]

Ooh, how edgy.