fossilesque@mander.xyzM to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · 8 days agoBurning Upmander.xyzimagemessage-square547fedilinkarrow-up11.34Karrow-down1110
arrow-up11.23Karrow-down1imageBurning Upmander.xyzfossilesque@mander.xyzM to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · 8 days agomessage-square547fedilink
minus-squarethebestaquaman@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2arrow-down4·7 days agoIdk why you guys are so passionate about this whole rounding thing? Rounding off 107 to 100 doesn’t change the information, only the precision. It’s not easier to interpret 200 than 212 or anything? If you want quick conversion, just F ≈ 2 * C + 30
minus-squareRemavas@programming.devlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up6arrow-down1·7 days agoI like how this directly goes against the argument of Fahrenheit being more “graded” with integers lol
minus-squareGladaed@feddit.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down1·7 days agoIf you fail to provide uncertainty it suggest that Celsius is much more complicated because you need to pay attention to decimal points. If you write 200 it would be anything between ±50and ±1 if you say 212 it means ± 2/1
Idk why you guys are so passionate about this whole rounding thing? Rounding off 107 to 100 doesn’t change the information, only the precision. It’s not easier to interpret 200 than 212 or anything?
If you want quick conversion, just
F ≈ 2 * C + 30
I like how this directly goes against the argument of Fahrenheit being more “graded” with integers lol
If you fail to provide uncertainty it suggest that Celsius is much more complicated because you need to pay attention to decimal points.
If you write 200 it would be anything between ±50and ±1 if you say 212 it means ± 2/1