• FooBarrington@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year 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
      ·
      1 year 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
        1 year 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
          1 year 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.