Yes but no. If there are no distinct societies on earth, but instead all are essentially the same and speak a common language, have access to all the same foods, listen to the same music, and buy the same goods from the same sweatshop factories, then sure, standards.
If there are distinct cultures, then each should have its own standards worked out through its own processes. In my opinion.
If you do any audio stuff, you’ll recognize positive and negative measurements on the VU meter. Not sure if it counts for you, but it’s similar in that it has a threshold set at 0 (like freezing with C), and units above and below the distortion point, which are given in VU (volume units) from -20 to +3.
So, again, what do you understand about the sentence:
Today was 48 degrees but tomorrow will be 43.
That I don’t understand about the sentence:
Today was 9 degrees but tomorrow will be 6.
If we both know perfectly well what they mean, do you think it takes me longer to work it out? What great or subtle insight am I missing?
If you tell me that it’s May 10th, I have a pretty good idea of what the temperature is likely to be, what plants are growing, which direction the length of days is moving, etc. Likewise, if you tell me that it’s Spring, I have a pretty good idea of all of that as well but, yes, we could get away without having the seasons and just use hard dates.
Would you prefer to throw away the concept of seasons? Does it add anything that couldn’t be made more precise and mathematical?
For length measurements, there was no one standard decided and people were fine to get rid of the old systems. But with the clock, we decided how to split things based on what was the most convenient for our way of thinking about the subject, how long meetings last on average, and so on. We ended up with the 24 hour clock and divisions of 60. The decimal clock worked just fine, mathematically, and people could have made meetings that were 2/5ths of a decimal hour, if they’d wanted to, but having to deal with bizarre time slices like “2/5ths” was annoying and they tossed it because it was too far removed from the human experience.
From a purely rational and mechanical standpoint, though, the decimal clock would have tied in perfectly to the rest of the metric system and we failed our rationality test as a species by not migrating to it.
Fahrenheit is the same. With it, you get nice temperature slices that work for us. 0 is dangerously cold, 1/4th is snow, 3/4ths is perfectly comfortable, and 4/4ths is where things start to get too hot. Without it, you mostly deal with numbers that aren’t appealing and seem to have been randomly attached to everything.
The rational system is more useful if you’re a number cruncher, doing science. But that’s true of almost none of the human population. For the other 99%, they like seasons, a 24 hour clock, and would probably prefer Fahrenheit.
95% of the population likes the seasons, a 24 hour clock, and Celsius. I’m still not sure what you’re talking about with “temperature slices”, because you can slice Fahrenheit temperatures in the same way. The slices won’t have the same numerical value, but they’ll still be slices and still serve the same purpose.
I grew up Fahrenheit in Southern California.
For practical purposes, the scale we used was 40–110, with most days between 60 & 100.
I don’t see how that’s materially different from using a scale from 5 to 45. In fact, I would argue that Celsius is more intuitive / natural for that particular climate.
Everyone arguing that Fahrenheit is superior is arguing that the familiar is superior to the unfamiliar. It’s just using numbers to compare temperatures. Celsius is never going to have you count higher than 50; Fahrenheit has a lower zero. Both of those are advantages, but really quite negligible ones.
Edit: this debate is eerily reminiscent of the Daylight Saving / Not debates, where a large chunk of the population seems to like changing their clocks without understanding that they’re basically just relabelling the hours of the day.
It’s all going to have an appearance of arbitrariness though, isn’t it? Celsius: Less than 0 = cold enough for snow. 10 = brisk weather. 20=room temp, 30 = pretty warm summer day. 40 = quite hot summer day. 50 = blazing hot weather not seen in most places on earth. What’s wrong with those? I actually like having 0 as the inflection point, as I know above I’m not likely to see to snow, and below, I definitely will see snow if there’s precipitation.
And as someone who also likes DST, I mean, no shit we realize that. Do you think we’re fucking stupid?
Whilst simultaneously in the Celsius scale:
0C Only suitable for Canadians
10C You need to put a jacket on
20C About the temperature you set your A/C
30C Getting warm, wear a hat.
40C Bloody hot.
How ya like dem slices?
Yup. This is all you need to remember.
30 (and above) = hot
20 = warm
10 = cold
0 (and below) = freezing
Every single person individually? Of course not. A significant proportion of its proponents? Absolutely—in a couple of months, have a look about how people discuss it. Lots of idiocy (and ignorance of geography and its relationship to daylight hours) on both sides.
I’d say, “For the other 99%, they like things the way that they’ve always done them.”
If many Americans prefer Fahrenheit, it’s because they grew up using it, they understand what 0 (or 50, or 90) mean to their own personal experience, and they don’t want to have to learn a different system.
I firmly believe that there is nothing magical about the Fahrenheit scale, that makes it objectively better for human use, other than “it makes sense to me, because it’s what I’ve always used.” And, that’s OK because it’s easy and comfortable to use if it’s the scale you’ve used your entire life…but there are people here in this thread (and in the U.S., generally) trying really hard to argue that there’s an objective, rational reason why it’s better, and why Celsius is clearly not just different, but inferior.
Most people DON’T like it though. Anyhow, that’s another thread. And, yes, I do believe most of the supporters can freaking grasp what is going on.
That’s a reasonable argument.
It’s all what you’re used to. I understand why 0-100 makes sense for human temps. But there’s nothing inherently better about how Celsius divides its temperatures. They both can be seen as familiar and relatable.
And I apologize. My response was too aggressive by half.
No worries at all! I certainly meant no insult.
Seems to me that we are switching to metric, albeit very slowly. Which is probably the least stressful way to do so. As has been pointed out in this thread, American who need to use metric - doctors, engineers, scientists - already do.
But even Joe Sixpack has gotten used to buying 2 liter bottles of Coke, or having both Imperial and metric sockets in his toolbox, or lacing up his running shoes for a 10K. All of this has come in over the course of my life - I never saw food packages give weight in grams when I was a kid. Given enough time, we will gradually convert fully.
Since uniformity with the rest of the world is good, though, how about this? We’ll switch to full metric, like the same day that the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and South Africa switch to driving on the right, like every other nation does. Surely it’s just as inefficient for those countries to use nonstandard cars as it is for Americans to use nonstandard measurements, right?
I have no problem noticing when the thermostat is off by a degree. Likewise, there’s plenty of times when I felt a little warm chilly and found comfort by adjusting it a degree F.
I thought that knowing when someone moved the thermostat from 70F to 71F was an innate Dad Power 
And of course, that XKCD’s hovertext is showing its age now that the EU has decreed that all charging of mobile devices shall be through USB-C…
A morning show announcer on CBC came up with this ditty;
0 is freezing
10 is not
20 is pleasing
30 is hot