Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Degrees What?

degreeswhat.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 124 posts

Re: Show HN: Degrees What?

#41

Post by lionkor »

silisili wrote: post #27
fouronnes3 wrote: post #2

Congrats on a good execution of a fun idea. The mobile UX feels very good. Also sorry to be that guy but: > when people specify a temperature in "degrees" when it’s not clear from the context which scale is being used. It should be degrees Celsius. Anything else is just insane ;)

Most of my use of degrees is either in cooking or weather. Having a larger scale means more accuracy, seeing as we don't use decimals in either. I'm not saying it makes a ton of sense, but my only real defense of it. That said, I find negative units rather silly in most measurements, so we should really be using K I think.

K is nice because between any X K and Y K such that 2*X = Y, the energy needed to go from one to the other doubles, too. You don't have this with C. 100°C -> 200°C is not 2x the energy.

Re: Show HN: Degrees What?

#42

Post by eru »

cinntaile wrote: post #19
onion2k wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can go below absolute zero, but things get weird. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130104143516.h...

That seems to be taking a theoretical approach. I don't think there are any experiments that have proven it is possible?

Compare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_temperature

Re: Show HN: Degrees What?

#47

Post by kazinator »

Disappointed not to see:

6: degrees of separation, at most, between any two people.

Also, USA murder degrees: first, second, third.

Another thing: the melting point of 60/40 solder is there; but not the eutectic mixture 63/37. Geeeeez!

Re: Show HN: Degrees What?

#48

Post by b112 »

lvncelot wrote: post #24
nirse wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, but some of my favourite cookbooks are American. What can you do?

Convert to F and also buy measuring cups/spoons and glare angrily from the recipe to my trusty scale, which stands unused in the corner, I guess. Measuring by weight is the one cooking-related hill that I will die on. (Recently, I had a recipe ask for four cups of lettuce, which could've been anything from 0.5x to 4x of what I finally went with, depending on how much I packed the cups. It's lunacy)

I've been waiting for canned lettuce, because I never have fresh when I need it, and plus they can eat it on the moon.

Re: Show HN: Degrees What?

#49

Post by perilunar »

mdturnerphys wrote: post #46
afgrant wrote: post #43

I don’t get why you would conflate temperature degrees with angular degrees. They have nothing to do with each other.

I presume that's kind of the point. It's fun.

"She said it was 95 degrees outside. I asked if she was being deliberately obtuse."

Re: Show HN: Degrees What?

#50

Post by mdturnerphys »

lionkor wrote: post #41
silisili wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of my use of degrees is either in cooking or weather. Having a larger scale means more accuracy, seeing as we don't use decimals in either. I'm not saying it makes a ton of sense, but my only real defense of it. That said, I find negative units rather silly in most measurements, so we should really be using K I think.

K is nice because between any X K and Y K such that 2*X = Y, the energy needed to go from one to the other doubles, too. You don't have this with C. 100°C -> 200°C is not 2x the energy.

It's not just nice for that reason, that's the reason the scale exists.
Post reply on HN