Nah, Celsius is useful if you're a human. Fahrenheit is useful if you're an American.
If there was a design, it's not clear what the intent was. It seems about twice as precise as it needs to be (i certainly can't perceive 1F°—for all intents and purposes, 70 feels about the same as 69 and 71) and doesn't seem to correlate to any scale that is immediately based off the needs of humans. At least compared to celcius.
I wonder if using a lower resolution scale dulls the senses like other forms of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity
I'm sure I could feel the difference if i split myself between two rooms with one degree difference. I just don't think this is a useful granularity—I typically move the thermostat by 2-5 degrees at a time.
The percentage of global population where the 0F..100F range is not a reasonable approximation of the temperature range they will experience is small. It's not perfect - no such range could, when humans live almost everywhere on the planet. But it's not bad ...
Neither 0F nor 100F are anything special for humans. It's "very cold" long before 0F and "very hot" long before 100F. 50F is nothing special either.
Room temperature is 72F.
I don't understand why this is always breought out when farenheit is criticized, as if the 0F-100F thing is the "killer app" for temperature scales.
curiously, nothing in the southern hemisphere?
I prefer metric otherwise but for temperature Fahrenheit just “clicks” in ways that Celsius doesn’t.
The Polish city of Gdańsk, of the then Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. He was also born there at the time. [1]
> He defined 0 degrees as the coldest measurement, 100 the hottest measurement.
Nope. It was neither about the temperatures in Gdańsk, nor about the temperature of his wife, btw. ;) [2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Gabriel_Fahrenheit
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FahrenheitIf you're not tying your scale to human-specific temps, why not just use Kelvin? At least that won't go negative.