Similarly, measuring things in feet is more precise and easier to me than measuring in meters. Tenth of meters is awkward, and decimeters are just never used colloquially. 5 feet tall vs. 6 feet or 1.5 vs 1.8 meters? Yuck.
Unless you're doing physics, you'll never do arithmetic on temperatures, and therefore the ability to more intuitively describing the weather is much more valid.
For the record, I'm European, and have no intuition of Fahrenheit temperatures. But the guy is actually making a valid point.
People don't say they're "one point seven meters" tall, they say "one seventy four" as in 174cm.
And I don't understand what does it mean to "not use all the digits". They are used, not just for the narrow range he cares about which is the comfort zone in his particular region of the world.
In Belgium it is between 15˚C and 25˚c all the year with few extremes on either sides. Nobody need 3 digits to tell if it's warm or not.
So Belgium is a perfect example of a place where Fahrenheit would be better.
(And, for the record, "low 20's" °C would be 68–73°F, which is a perfectly useful range, just with a slightly shifted boundary than what both of us are used to.)
where |s| := the cardinality of s
Only slightly less cardinality, a phrase that takes longer to say, and much less precision.
How do you figure? For any given interval, say, freezing point to boiling point of water; F is precisely 9/5 the precision of C, no? Which is close to double, but not more than double.
Or am I misunderstanding your point?