> Do you honestly notice the difference in comfort between 20°C and 20.5°C?
Yeah, it's noticeable. That 0.5C move is roughly a 1F move. And there's definitely a noticeable difference between 71F, 72F, and 73F.
But I'd say that it ultimately only matters in human comfort and only when you are talking about room temps. Once you get outside that 70->75 range the exactness starts mattering a lot less. 80 and 85 both feel hot. 65 and 60 both feel cold.
Temperature is the worst metric unit to pick for this. Both the imperial and metric versions of temperature are completely arbitrary. It's really baffling to me that THIS is the one that most people talking about metric superiority cling to. Where metric shines is when you talk about subunits like mg vs g vs kg. You don't do that with temperature almost ever. So so what if water boils at 212F vs 100C? Pinning 100 at the boiling point of pure water at standard atmospheric pressure is every bit as arbitrary as Fs original 100F pin to the internal body temperature of a horse.
Otherwise I agree with you. I just wish stronger arguments would be made. Measuring distance, speed, weight, volume in metric makes a lot more sense and is more intuitive. It's easy to relate 300mL to 1L. or 1cm to 1m to 1km. And that is where most of the value of metric comes from. The fact that we basically never think in terms of kC or mC is why using temperature is very weak.
ARM that supports UEFI? I wouldn't say that's many devices. All the other support is there, but the UEFI is notably missing (at least at the consumer level). That's part of the reason why it's almost impossible to buy an ARM linux laptop that doesn't have some hacky vendor specific kernel.
Generally speaking, the way it's supposed to work is the local prosecutors will start the process. That, unfortunately, isn't something they like to do because they have to work with police departments. If they fail to do their job, theoretically the next step is that the FBI gets involved. But, doesn't seem like today's FBI is doing much beyond prosecuting Trump's political enemies.
This is the reason why I've long believed we need a check both federal and local to police that is completely divorced from regular prosecution. We need lawyers/investigators whose sole purpose is investigating and prosecuting police at pretty much all levels of the government. The federal government theoretically has that with the office of inspectors general.
It'll be fractured for a while, which isn't great.
Africa will likely primarily use the yuan, Europe the euro, and a smattering of states will use the dollar.
This sort of fracturing is bad because the cost of goods will be pretty much unpredictable. Trade routes may once again determine how something is priced. It also means goods that are cheap today may become massively expensive tomorrow.
There might be some regional stability, but things like electronics that use a global market are going to be heavily disrupted.
Peter Navarro is the idiot whose mostly pushing the Trump economic policies. I say idiot, because he is really a complete and total crackpot. He's written a couple of papers where he cites himself on uncited principles as if they were ironclad economics. A flat earther to an astronomer is what Navarro is to an economist.
He is anti-trade and pro-isolation. He actually wants the US dollar to lose it's status as a world currency. His thought? If it does, then we'll better address national debt. Basically "Let's light the house on fire so we finally address the upstairs draft."
Republican politicians are ignoring their constituents.
It's quiet depressing, because a large number of them know they'll be just fine regardless what they do.
We, in Idaho, recently had a school voucher program rammed through even though a huge number of people called to oppose it. Like 90% against 10% for. They still signed it into law.
Indeed, but it might be many decades - once this lesson is first learned, it will take a long time to unlearn because it tends to become self-reinforcing.
To give an illustration of how long institutional memory over things like this can be:
As of when I went to primary school in Norway in the 1980's, we were still taught at length about the British blockade of Norway during the Napoleonic wars due to Denmark-Norway's entry into the war on Napoleons side and its impact on Norway (an enduring memory for many Norwegian school-children is having to learn the Norwegian epic poem "Terje Vigen" about a man evading the blockade).
Norwegian agricultural policy to this day has had a costly cross-party support for subsidies intended to provide at least a minimum of food idependence as a consequence of learning the hard way first during the Napoleonic wars with a reinforcement (though less serious) during WW2 of how important it can be.
A large part of the Norwegian negotiations for EEA entry, and Norways rejection of EU membership was centered around agricultural policy in part because of this history.
The importance of regional development and keeping agriculture alive even in regions that are really not suited to it is "baked in" to Norwegian politics in part because the subsidies means that on top of those who are about the food idependence a lot of people are financially benefiting from the continuation of those policies, or have lived shaped by it (e.g. local communities that would likely not exist if the farms had not been financially viable thanks to subsidies), so structures have been created around it that have a life of their own.
Conversely, a lot of support for the US in Europe rests on institutional memory of the Marshall Plan, with most of the generations with first hand experience of the impact now dead.
Create a replacement memory of the US becoming a hostile force, and that can easily embed itself for the same 3+ generations after the situation itself has been resolved.
Interesting; as a British person myself, we don't get taught any of that about Norway or Denmark, not even knowing that they were once joint together in a union.
I'm not surprised. From a British POV it was a relatively minor part of a much larger conflict that Britain was done with when Napoleon defeated, and Denmark-Norway was for most practical purposes treated as "just" Denmark, since Denmark was the more powerful part of the union by far.
From the Danish and Norwegian side, Britain annihilated or captured most of the Danish-Norwegian fleet because Britain expected Denmark-Norway to enter the war on Napoleons side (as a consequence, Denmark-Norway of course entered, but severely weakened), and Norway was blockaded and faced famine from 1808-1814.
After the war ended, the Norwegian mainland was handed over to Sweden (Iceland and Greenland were also Norwegian at that point, but stayed with Denmark), but Norway took advantage of the process and passed a constitution and briefly went to war against Sweden to force a better settlement, resulting in a relatively loose union. So this whole affair had a very significant effect on the formation of the Norwegian state.
Yeah, it's noticeable. That 0.5C move is roughly a 1F move. And there's definitely a noticeable difference between 71F, 72F, and 73F.
But I'd say that it ultimately only matters in human comfort and only when you are talking about room temps. Once you get outside that 70->75 range the exactness starts mattering a lot less. 80 and 85 both feel hot. 65 and 60 both feel cold.
reply