this post was submitted on 24 Apr 2026
536 points (93.4% liked)
memes
21012 readers
1581 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It is better because it uses 2 times water as reference point.
Not one thing and then a completely different one.
We could for example set the 0 degrees at the freezing point of alcohol and 100 at the boiling point.
Or 0 at the boiling point of argon and 100 at the temperature it turns into plasma.
Both of these fictional scales are better than Fahrenheit.
You didn't answer why that makes it better. What functionality does it give us that we don't have if we use two reference points from different things. I'm pretty confident there aren't any. This is proven especially true because that's not how Celsius is defined anymore, and it didn't lose any functionality. It sounds more "pure", or whatever, but that doesn't make it better. Do you have an actual reason that it improves its functionality?