@[email protected]M to Science [email protected]English • 8 days agoBurning Upmander.xyzimagemessage-square510fedilinkarrow-up11.28Karrow-down1109
arrow-up11.17Karrow-down1imageBurning Upmander.xyz@[email protected]M to Science [email protected]English • 8 days agomessage-square510fedilink
minus-square@thebestaquamanlinkEnglish-2•7 days agoIdk why you guys are so passionate about this whole rounding thing? Rounding off 107 to 100 doesn’t change the information, only the precision. It’s not easier to interpret 200 than 212 or anything? If you want quick conversion, just F ≈ 2 * C + 30
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish0•7 days agoIf you fail to provide uncertainty it suggest that Celsius is much more complicated because you need to pay attention to decimal points. If you write 200 it would be anything between ±50and ±1 if you say 212 it means ± 2/1
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish5•7 days agoI like how this directly goes against the argument of Fahrenheit being more “graded” with integers lol
Idk why you guys are so passionate about this whole rounding thing? Rounding off 107 to 100 doesn’t change the information, only the precision. It’s not easier to interpret 200 than 212 or anything?
If you want quick conversion, just
F ≈ 2 * C + 30
If you fail to provide uncertainty it suggest that Celsius is much more complicated because you need to pay attention to decimal points.
If you write 200 it would be anything between ±50and ±1 if you say 212 it means ± 2/1
I like how this directly goes against the argument of Fahrenheit being more “graded” with integers lol