Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Degrees What?

degreeswhat.com

61–70 of 124 posts

Re: Show HN: Degrees What?

#61
post #35

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.* That's your choice though. Outside temperature cannot be measured precisely enough to warrant decimals (it's supposed to be 17.4°C outside but who can tell the difference with 17°C or 18°C...) but my car's A/C is set to 21.5°C and my home's heating is set to 19.5°C.

I figure C is like F for cooking, correct me if I'm wrong. Everything is a multiple of 5, you'll never see bake at 372F or something odd. If C is the same way, that's probably pretty restricting.

Every recipe I've seen has the oven temperature as a multiple of 20°C.

Ovens aren't accurate enough for measuring 5°C, let alone 2.5°C.

(Ignoring badly-translated American recipes which call for 179°C and 454.5g of potatoes.)

For air temperature, my behaviour wouldn't change at all if someone told me it is 18±0.25°C rather than the normal 18±0.5°C. We could round to the nearest 2° and it would be fine.

Re: Show HN: Degrees What?

#62
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?

Lasers often have negative temperatures. It's not that weird

Re: Show HN: Degrees What?

#63
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Degrees Kelvin". Yeah, I've actually heard that.

It's an obsolete name, but was official at one point.

What do you mean? It’s a different scale that has the same ‘unit length’ as Celsius, but it’s not the same. Also, it’s very much ‘current’ in the physics context.

Re: Show HN: Degrees What?

#64
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an obsolete name, but was official at one point.

What do you mean? It’s a different scale that has the same ‘unit length’ as Celsius, but it’s not the same. Also, it’s very much ‘current’ in the physics context.

I'm assuming they mean the "degrees" part. These days, the standard is to say (for example) 200 kelvin, not 200 degrees Kelvin.

Re: Show HN: Degrees What?

#65
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?

It's using related but somewhat different meaning of the concept.

It's how these things go. You and me think of "temperature" as something simple, like it all started. You know, you find some material that noticeably expands or contracts when warmed or cooled, you turn it into an indicator along what will be a scale, and you make a mark for e.g. "roughly when water starts freezing over" and "when water starts boiling"[0]. You make a regular gradation in between, let it spill over below and above your "min" and "max" anchors, you put some numbers on this, and "Bob's your uncle".

This of course is super useful, so others refine your "thermometer", as they realize just how stable and broadly-applicable this "temperature" is as a measure. Eventually some start asking how it all works, and you hear some grumbling about average kinetic energy of particles, which still kinda makes sense. I mean, lots of tiny things buzzing around, and there's that German guy saying you can't possibly measure each of the tiny things individually, but whatever - the average, low-frequency part is stable.

But then those theorists push and push, and break through the barriers of sanity. They enter R'lyeh and start transcribing the Eldritch tablets found inside. Suddenly, you see temperature redefined using something else, something you recall should also be a statistical phenomenon but suddenly isn't[1]. You see words like entropy and enthalpy thrown around, and then some American mathematicians get involved, and suddenly there's also negtropy and fractional bits, and nothing makes any kind of sense anymore - temperatures going below absolute zero, the "nothing actually moves anymore" point, leading to negative temperatures where heat flows from colder to hotter...

...really that's one of the least weird thing in hard sciences these days.

--

[0] - In the process discovering that this was a really good choice of anchors, as water behaves in strange ways at exactly those two temperatures.

[1] - Or is it? Are you sure what "statistical" means these days? Are you sure what "means" means these days?

Re: Show HN: Degrees What?

#66
It gives me anxiety. So much information which I know I'm missing out because of the navigation. Maybe there's something I find a bit more interesting than the melting point of Benzene at standard atmospheric pressure, but how will I know?

Re: Show HN: Degrees What?

#67
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Lasers often have negative temperatures. It's not that weird

Okay, can we use it for cooling like in Sundiver by David Brin[0], where people (IIRC) used lasers to keep themselves cool while, as per title, diving their ship into the Sun?

--

[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundiver

Re: Show HN: Degrees What?

#68
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Interesting I wasn't aware of this definition but I would consider that moving the goal posts (not by you to be clear). Since that's using a different definition of temperature, the original poster was referring to the more common definition of temperature where at 0K nothing moves anymore.

Re: Show HN: Degrees What?

#69
post #36

This design reminds me an example from Jef Raskin’s book about user interfaces. Instead of choosing a mode (C->F, F->C) it just shows both results, so a user can pick what they need without interacting. It would be cool if compass was inertial.

Thanks for reminding me I need to finally Read Raskin. I occasionally hear the name in context of UI and approachable computing, but I somehow imagine he'd go in opposite direction to increasing information density.

This approach reminds me of the works of a different person - Edward Tufte. He writes about visualizing information, but that by itself is a user interface (even if we didn't call it this until recently). He gives plenty of praise to designs like this - which show you everything at once, and play into strengths of your visual system, which is very good at focusing, zooming out, filtering out things you're not interested in, and switching focus rapidly.

Re: Show HN: Degrees What?

#70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I figure C is like F for cooking, correct me if I'm wrong. Everything is a multiple of 5, you'll never see bake at 372F or something odd. If C is the same way, that's probably pretty restricting.

Every recipe I've seen has the oven temperature as a multiple of 20°C. Ovens aren't accurate enough for measuring 5°C, let alone 2.5°C. (Ignoring badly-translated American recipes which call for 179°C and 454.5g of potatoes.) For air temperature, my behaviour wouldn't change at all if someone told me it is 18±0.25°C rather than the normal 18±0.5°C. We could round to the nearest 2° and it would be fine.

Get a cheap IR thermometer. For both ovens and rooms, you can use it to see that the temperature varies by up to a few degrees C from top to bottom.

> badly-translated American recipes which call for 179°C and 454.5g of potatoes

This drives me up the wall .. but a lot of UK goods are sold in "metric-numbered imperial sizes". At the weekend I bought 450g (half lb) of meat and a 6.3mm (1/4") router bit.

Post reply on HN