• Sagifurius@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    212 and 100 are both equally random numbers. There’s nothing special about either. Besides, water boils about 205/95 on my hill.

    • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      No, 212 and 100 are not equally random. Unless you’re trying to say that literally all numbers are equally random, 100 in the decimal system is much less random that 212.

      • Sagifurius@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        Assigning the number 100 to the temperature pure water boils at sea level under specific conditions is as random as it gets. At least Farenheit numbers were based on a chemical concoction that exhibits the same temperature output regardless of elevation or pressure that they used to calibrate.

        • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          Assigning the number 100 to the temperature pure water boils at sea level under specific conditions is as random as it gets.

          No, it’s literally not. 212 is much more random. Any number like 10, 100, 1000 etc. is less random than any other number, simply by virtue of our decimal system. Just like 2,4, 8 etc. are less random in a binary system.

          • Sagifurius@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            This isn’t kilometers, area, volume, distant measurement. It’s temperature. What that 100 is based on is random as fuck, and having the temperature of one elements boiling point at sea level divisible by 10 doesn’t really help anything. There is a 100 degree point in Farenhenheit too, you could simply use that for…well whatever reason you need ten to go in evenly.