Date:         Wed, 1 Feb 2006 11:45:44 -0500
Reply-To:     Kim Brennan <kimbrennan@MAC.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Kim Brennan <kimbrennan@MAC.COM>
Subject:      Re: Metric this, metric that
Comments: To: John Bange <jbange@GMAIL.COM>
In-Reply-To:  <6da579340601312143r5b228c08h177268b166ffa68@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed

I'm sorry, but I have a hard time judging a difference between 68 F and
69 F. Or 89 F and 90F.

16 and 17C, yep, I notice a difference there.


On Feb 1, 2006, at 12:43 AM, John Bange wrote:

> On 1/31/06, Jeff Palmer <icecoldvw@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> How is 70 degrees Fahrenheit more user friendly or more 'appropriate'
>> than
>> 20 degrees Celsius?
>
>
> It's not that "70" is better than "20", it's that the difference
> between 20C
> and 21C is generally too coarse a gradiation in comparison to human
> ability
> to sense temperature. Fahrenheit, more by luck than anything else,
> pretty
> much exactly hits that sweet spot. Fairly mundane claim to fame, but
> hey,
> most people leave mundane lives.
>