0F is really cold.
100F is really hot.
Something towards the middle feels pretty good (50F, 60F.. but really depends on preference in this region).
So, with that in mind, 130F is scorching off the charts, and I wouldn't want to be out there.
I've heard this several times, but I can tell you it really doesn't help me to get a good sense of Farenheit. My theory is Americans enjoy describing it this way (0 = really cold, 100 = really hot) because it seems pragmatic and humane, but it probably does little to help them get a feel for the scale. The main reason they have a good feel for the Farenheit scale is lots of experience with it, same as any other scale. Lots of internalised data points that create a frame of reference.
We Brits like to think our scale is easy because 0 = melting ice, 100 = boiling water. But when I estimate the outdoor temperature as 25 C, I think my brain is really just linking that to past experiences of similar temperatures, the ice/boiling water thing doesn't come into it.
It's not a matter of "getting a sense of the scale". That sense of the scale comes from lived experience of weather, not brief textual descriptions of the scale.
This doesn't change the fact that 130 is hot, but for many people 50 F is "freezing."
Rarely below -18°C ~ 0°F
and rarely above 38°C ~ 100°F