Why do yanks insist picking such idiotic numbers when they speak in metric, seriously wtf is -18 to 38? If those were realistic temperatures, surely you realize it would be -20 to 40, no?
-20, or any negative c, is rare to most ff the worlds population so your comment is dumb on two fronts.
Mate I have to reply to that, because it’s such an insane claim - the US, the only country that doesn’t use °C, has this huge reliance on a monstrously complex credit system (obviously the entire concept of credit is reliant on the concept of debt and negatives). It’s flat out insane to suggest that the same people who live and function with such a credit system conceptually struggle with the fundamentals negative numbers. It’s a mind boggling claim.
Anyway, have a good one.
as if that logic can’t be applied to every unit system on earth.
Mate that’s my whole point. I grew up Celsius in Australia and use Farenheit day to day now. They are literally interchangable once you learn. It takes a month or two to get used of using them and beyond that, the literal only difference in difficulty of use is that it takes about ten seconds longer to calculate a green tea brew in f, which has no bearing on the weather anyway. All of the arguments above are garbage, as they are garbage when the exact same, inverted arguments are made by metric proponents.
What doesn’t make sense about it? You can tell another person it’s in the 30s outside, and you have efficiently communicated more information than is possible when using Celsius. You’d have to say it’s between 4 and negative 1, which is just lame. And this remains true across every temperature, because of a variety of factors which I explained above.
It doesn’t tell you anything that Celsius can’t with a 5 degree swing. This the absolute peak of arbitrary, both 5s and 10s are easy scales to work with. Your example of between 4 and negative one is deranged. I’m in houston right, it’s 90°f - if I want to comunnicate that to my yankee girlfriend I’d say “babe it’s 90° outside, might get up to one hundred” and so far, you’re right this is easy to articulate. If I want to communicate that same information to my mum, I’d say “hey it’s 30° outside, might get up to 35°”. Both cases convey information with the same accuracy, both cases I haven’t mentioned humidity, which for actual temperature feel has a way higher influence then 5 degrees, the extra information I’d gain by strictly converting 31-37.8°C is junk data, the farenheit measure is approximated to begin with and because of a humidity swing carries a huge variability in actual “feel” anyway. I tried to explain this above and clearly failed, as your response doesn’t touch on this at all and just insists that people who think in metric don’t default to easy to work with numbers.
In every climate which you mentioned above, it’s easier to communicate how hot or cold it is outside using Fahrenheit. This is because all of the numbers being used are non-negative integers (aka natural numbers). Even the triple digit ones are one-ten or one-twenty.
The only place with negative integers was Pittsburg, so that point doesn’t make sense for the rest and even if it was, your argument is insane. Saying negative 5 is no harder than saying 25, plus having negatives where snow and ice come into play makes it obvious when to be careful outside. I mean your argument here just makes no sense, if there is some added complexity to saying “negative” then it is surely comparable to having to remember a random number of 32. Literal kindergardeners understand negative numbers. Neither this or remembering the 32 number add any meaningful complexity and certainly have 0 impact on anyone’s actual use of either scale.
You certainly didn’t win any arguments with those claims.
0-100f is not anywhere close to the scale people see in the weather anywhere most people live. Taking where I’ve ever lived as an example:
The most iimportant number with respect to the weather is freezing, it’s handy knowing if you’re dealing with ice. The standard range for where people live is not -40 degrees, something like 2/3 of the world live between the tropics and will never see freezing or below. The -40 number makes sense if you live in Alaska or Siberia and maybe even somewhere like Minnesota, but certainly not to someone in India or Indonesia…
Neither scale is relative to cooking (which isequally arbitrary for both), though metric is easier for things like brewing 80°C tea since you need 4/5th a cup boiling water and 1/5 a cup and no thermometer.
The “feel” of the weather is hugely impacted by humidity which is why every forecast has a “feels like” measure and why 90°f in Dubai is lovely but 90°f in Houston is miserable. The increments of 10f doesn’t make sense at all, though seems to be a common perception among people who prefer fahrenheit
The comment about farenheit being more granular would be true in an alternative universe where decimals don’t exist, but not in this one.
Americans literally like farenheit more because it’s familiar, any other rationalisation is nonsense. Both measures make perfect sense after you’ve taken the time to learn them and use them daily (I know this firsthand).
Mid 30s Aussie living the the US. Yes I can drive a manual, yes I do drive a manual and yes I think it should be mandatory for 100% of learning drivers regardless of whether they plan to daily drive an automatic or manual when licensed.
The quality of driving here is considerably worse here than what I’ve experienced in Australia or Europe and I’m convinced requiring people to drive in a machine that forces them to consider the next ~100m leads to higher quality, more mindful drivers.
You came across as super patronizing so I responded the same. It’s not that big of a thing man, chill out.
You can eat and not pay attention with a manual transmission, I don’t know why we’d pretend you can’t. If you’re just on the highway cruising both are just going to be in one gear all the time.
I never claimed you couldn’t eat and drive a manual. I said that people who claim autos are better because they make it easier to choose to drive distracted (alternative phrasing - who choose to drive like a reckless asshole) shouldn’t be on the road.
Either way, the problem is that people have to drive even if they don’t want to engage. The popularity of automatic transmissions proves that (to most Americans at least) cars are an appliance and something people do because they have to. Fuck cars.
Well, yeah, that’s always been the case. There are some enthusiasts sure, but for the most part a car is seen as a more convenient bus. But people riding the bus seldom choose to behave dangerously while commuting, there’s something about the mentality of these people (choosing to drive distracted) that is at odds with normal, acceptable behavior
You don’t need to assure me of the blatantly obvious. My point wasn’t that you can’t eat and drive manual at the same time, it was that all these people claim automatic is a better transmission on the basis it facilitates their choice to drive distracted shouldn’t be on the road. I didn’t see a single person saying “oh I like driving manual better because it makes it easier for me to be an irresponsible road user”.
All of these people responding that they prefer auto so they can eat or otherwise not pay attention in the car are the best (only?) argument for why everyone should drive manual.
Whatever your transmission preference is, if you’re not engaged in driving you shouldn’t be on the road!
The two differences you listed improve traffic flow and safety massively!
Driver education is often more strict depending on country (I’m thinking Scandinavian countries and Germany), unsurprisingly this makes a big difference.
Traveling faster is a bit of a moot point. If people drive faster and rate of incidents and road toll are lower, surely that proves that travel speed isn’t the problem in the US.
But really, the drink driving culture in America is terrifying. The state of Texas has a similar population to Australia (where I’m from), 9,560 people died on the road in Q1 2022 in texas. Australia had just under 2000 FOR THE WHOLE YEAR! Both places have similar speed limits that are considerably slower than Europe, so I don’t think it would be honest to try and say the low speed limits cause deaths. My best guess would be that drink driving is enforced at 0.05 in Australia compared to 0.08 in Texas. On top of this, Texas only enforces if officers have a cause for lawful detainment, which is a high threshold to cross compared to random breath tests common where I’m from.
It’s incorrect to think of most road laws as being in place for safety, instead recognize that it’s largely a tax by another name. It is never safe to drive 20mph below prevailing traffic, regardless of what the sign on the side of the road instructs.
To avoid fines, pay attention and try to avoid routes where there are often cops collecting a toll, especially during quieter times when you’re one of a smaller number of commuters (and more likely to be the sucker who gets pinged). If you’re white, congratulations, you’re way less likely to be the unlucky party who gets pinged.
The reason I asked was because I think there’s a fundamental disagreement between what it actually is that people disagree about.
Your earlier post suggests that your stance on abortion is different than that of the mainstream conservative narrative. This seems normal, based on how every vote on that issue seems to be playing out, there is a disconnect between the ideology that conservative leaders are pushing and what their supporters actually think. The exact same situation is true with affirmation action on the left - voters consistently reject it regardless of party affiliation or self identified political leaning.
I’d hear people identify CRT as being closely related to affirmative action, in that it’s an actual policy that gives out some advantage (or seeks to remove some other existing advantage, if you have a different perspective) vs being some purely academic case study more like what a other response to your response described.
Where I’m going with this is that depending on what you’re describing when you say CRT, it’s very easily possible that your position of opposing it is consistent with a clear majority of people who identify as “left”. The disagreement isn’t about ideology, but about semantics that is being exploited by a political class to drive support.
Ultimately if people want to debate you, you’re not obligated to indulge them. It’s good for discourse to put out your opinion in the way that you have (eg respectfully and without throwing barbs at everyone).
That said, some of your points are hard for me to follow.
I don’t have a perfect knowledge of exactly what’s on the left and right so please forgive me if I put something in the wrong category.
If you can’t articulate the difference, how is it that you came to identify as one? IMO “left vs right” is an intentionally vague and poorly defined concept to keep people angry and identifying with a brand, more than a coherent description of ideology.
I understand that left vs right ideally shouldn’t exist. The same goes for political parties. They do exist so here’s some of my views from both sides.
I don’t agree with critical race theory…
I hear so much about this. What does it mean? Can you give a real world example where someone is trying to implement what you oppose?
Exponentially both ways though I would argue, often, the slower driver is more of a hazard to other drivers!
If someone burns past in the left lane unless someone else does something wrong (like move lanes without looking first) or causes rapid traffic slowdown in the left lane either by merging poorly or being too aggressive on the brakes, they are more or less not a risk.
If someone is driving too slow they are dangerous without anyone else making a mistake - if you or anyone behind you doesn’t have visibility (eg behind a truck, around a bend, glare from the sun etc) then there’s a hard braking event, which is always dangerous. The more slowly compared to prevailing traffic they go, the more attentive other drivers need to be, the more dangerous it becomes.
Socialism is defined by the elimination of the purely capitalist class, wherin workers own the means of production.
That doesn’t necessarily mean that capital isn’t assigned for investment based upon market demand or that “EvEryoNe gEts pAId tHE SAmE” like others claim. Socialism in a modern economy can (and likely would be) market based, it just means that shareholders would be entirely made up of employees of a company (obviously this would lead to better conditions for workers, lower wages for executives and no dividend payments to people who aren’t working). Taking a more academic definition of capitalism, it’s entirely possible to be both socialist and capitalist. Few people are arguing against capitalism in entirety.
I would say that most “MAGA” or whatever equivalent regressive movement exists anywhere is not at all conservative (MAGA supporters attempted a coupe, which is radical, the opposite of conservative), that’s just branding. In much the same way as the people’s democratic republic of Korea is not democratic, “liberals” in the USA political landscape are usually leftists (typically with a lot of illiberal positions) etc.
It isn’t that these people support capitalism (they are often ignorant of what capitalism even entails, the same way they think communism means anything they disagree with) it’s that they vaguely support existing power and class structures, though again, from what I’ve seen they can rarely coherently describe what they support and what they oppose, outside of a few tailor designed talking points like abortion or transgenderism.
Yeah, and people in metric round the exact same as they do in f. You think the hot parts of the US don’t hit 122 or something equally arbitrary? When talking range, anyone who isn’t unhinged approximates to the nearest whole number.
Why the fuck not? It makes literally no difference. Some people like freezing to be at a focal point of a scale, and some based on this thread have some bizarre fear of negatives. Either preference is equally arbitrary and neither is objectively right.
A few degrees is common. Most populous county in the world is India, how common do you think it is there? Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico etc etc etc. it’s a minority of countries that experience anything substantially below zero c. You know, I’ve been to literal mt Everest base camp, lived in western pa and been to the winter Olympics in South Korea and still have never seen -20C. Does it exist? Obviously, but for day to day ease of use for like 80% of the worlds population it’s irrelevant.