ahh I can’t believe people are nostalgic for the Harlem shake lol
I’m going to be saying the same about Skibidi Toilet in 10 years.
I’m not even sure what that means. I’m familiar with Harlem shake, but skibidi toilet?
The Internet is a weird place. I love it here.
Skibidi toilet playlist (it does get better):
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-ZXraMeHBPLZWTMFc3n43JdBgZ95mVNo
Thank you for the whole playlist that’s probably never worth watching!
Wait until people come up with other, older things to be nostalgic about. Like Shoop da Whoop or Ronald McDonald Insanity. Peak 2000’s internet brainrot.
Okay so.
Skibidi toilet is – or started out as – a Source Filmmaker Youtube poop. The first few videos were some heads popping out of toilets kind of nope.avi style while, if you’ll pardon the double entendre, scat singing.
This somehow got spun up into a multi-part war drama. I must reiterate: Somehow. The word “skibidi” has entered the iPad kid generation’s lexicon as either a nonsense word, a word meaning “nonsense” or I think I’ve heard it used the way Bill & Ted would use the word “bogus”.
Just realized there will come a day (probably already has) where people can’t hear this image.
I can’t, what is it supposed to sound like?
CON LOS TERRORISTAS
Or, more accurately, COHN LOH TEhRRORIhTAHH
Oh god. The day has arrived.
The Internet used to be better
Before money ruined it all.
… you thought harlem shake was better?
IMO, not specifically Harlem shake, no, but Harlem shake was a product of the Internet in its prime.
IDK if that makes any sense
I agree. It was bolder (for its time), it was carefree, and it had the thrill of exploring new territory. I miss Vine goddamn it.
Yeah when I said the day had probably already arrived, I wasn’t prepared to face that cold reality
Ah. Takes me back to Sixth Form this does
I can’t read that without imagining a very extended boss fight.
unfortunately sixth form is much more boring than that
Hmmm, ours was pretty violent, sadly.
Blippy’s Harlem shake was the best one
I’m impressed I can still hear it lol
Well I’m functionally deaf, sooo…
Harlem Shake
Celsius is the only SI unit I don’t like. I get that it’s more objective than Fahrenheit, but it has worse vibes and isn’t pleasant because it’s the worst of both worlds between the actual objectivity of Kelvin and the humanism of Fahrenheit.
Lucky for you, the SI unit is kelvin, not celsius
the humanism of Fahrenheit.
How? Fahrenheit scale is totally incomprehensible. Celsius at least is using a rational point for 0 (=where water freezes) and same scale as Kelvin.
There are very few places that experience -17C and 40C for that to be really useful. And I don’t get it at all. 0 is cold, 30 is hot. Not a difficult concept.
Intuition is entirely based on familiarity.
It isn’t just about intuition as randomly judged by how you or anyone else feels about it. Humans do a lot of things on 0 to 100 and 0 to 10 scales. Literally the basis of the metric system. But all measurements are arbitrary comparisons to some target object: “the meter”.
So a temperature scale that closely aligns the 0 to 100 scale to the minimum and maximum commonly experienced surface temperature of the planet we live on is going to feel more natural to use than one which aligns to the boiling point of water, something we don’t usually encounter in nature.
Now we do encounter boiling liquids, and hotter, in labs and in kitchens, which is why C probably feels natural to scientists and people who cook a lot.
But the resolution of it isn’t particularly intuitive. What does 1\100th of the aggregate temperature of boiling water have to do with anything? Why a linear scale? It takes more energy to add 1°C of heat to an ice cube than to the equivalent amount of 20°C (“room temperature”) water.
Measurements are about both precision and repeatability, but also about conveying information in an easily understandable way. Sometimes those goals conflict, particularly when a scale of measurement is used in both informal and formal settings.
Subjectively? I only really think there are like six temperatures. Fucking hot, hot, warm, cool, cold, fucking cold. My clothing choices change at each stage of that scale.
Just because F encapsulates that in a positive integer 1-100 scale doesn’t really make it appeal to me. C feels much more natural, more human, because you’re not dealing with ludicrously small increments that don’t matter for day to day use, and the 0-30 captures almost all temperatures you’re going to actually see day to day.
It irks me that people are trying to turn their personal prejudices and habits into like, objective universal laws.
Farenheit is set up such that temperatures between 0 and 100 convey the subjective feel. 0F is really cold, 100F is really hot. Obviously cold and hot feel is subjective, but what could be more human than subjectivity?
One quibble - it fully ignores humidity, as does C. The subjective feel of a climate doesn’t depend only on temperature. 50% humidity at 10C is very different from 50% at 40C.
Fahrenheit has nearly double the resolution of Celsius.
The arguments for Fahrenheit get stranger and stranger. First vibe designing measurement systems and now it’s got more resolution
That is a weird argument. TBH there are only like six ACTUAL temperatures: fucking hot, hot, warm, cool, cold, fuckin’ cold. Everything else is paperwork and doesn’t really inform your day to day. The difference between say 30 and 29C is maybe undoing a button on your shirt.
The subjective feel? The fuck lmao
Not if you grew up with it
0F - 100F is about the range of most of Earth’s weather, if Earth’s weather is outside that range, such as at the poles or Death Valley, being in the environment itself is an emergency.
100F was originally set to roughly human body temperature. 0 was the freezing point of a brine mixture (water, salt, and ammonium) meant to be similar to sea water. It was used because the temperature would self-stabilize at a particular temperature, which was defined as 0 degrees.
That’s why its “humanistic,” the scale roughly includes the temperature range we can survive in, and provides decent granularity within that range. Metric based everything on pure water, which is pretty arbitrary also, as evidenced by both scales being redefined as more precise and repeatable means of defining measured units have become available.
Ah yes the salt and ammonia brine, how human.
Both systems include the temps we can survive in
“Includes” was the wrong word, its like the opposite of hyperbole here. The range humans can survive in is roughly 0 to 100 in F, the full range of the scale. The range in Centigrade is roughly -17 to 30. It isnt that it “includes” it, the entire useful portion of the meter is dedicated to it.
But humans can survive way past both points and commonly do. Not sure I see the usefulness of something that “rough” and vague. “It’s pretty cold” being 0 or -17 doesn’t seem like it matters a bit.
The range humans can survive in is roughly 0 to 100 in F, the full range of the scale. The range in Centigrade is roughly -17 to 30
Minor correction:
30°C is a relatively normal temperature for much of the world (not necessarily all the time, but during the hotter parts of the year at least). That’s 86°F. Where I am in Michigan today the high is 32°C.
0°F to 100°F is roughly -18°C to 38°C.
“Thirty is hot, twenty is nice, ten is chilly, zero is ice.”
(I’ve heard this as “ten is cold,” but to me ten isn’t cold, it’s just starting to get chilly. 10°C=50°F, and I wouldn’t call 50°F cold (depending on the season, I guess.)
Off topic, having spent my whole life using Fahrenheit until about six years ago when I decided to test the “Fahrenheit is better for describing weather as it effects humans” reasoning I always used by switching to Celsius on all my devices…I personally much prefer Celsius. It is remarkable how much more meaning I get from -5°C than I ever did from 23°F. Because a degree Celsius is less granular than a degree Fahrenheit, learning the meaning of a degree is much easier. And because the below-freezing temperatures are negative reflections of the above-freezing values, it’s much easier to understand cold temperatures in Celsius (in my opinion).
Kelvin decribes physics
Fahrenheit describes typical human environments
Celsius describes water
F for temperatures affecting humans, C for science.
F for temperatures affecting humans, C for science.
I used to say this. But being a curious person, and one willing to test my own hypothesis, I decided to learn Celsius. Like, spend enough time with it to intuitively understand it, so that I could compare the two.
Almost six years later, I haven’t switched back. I much prefer Celsius for weather. Having 0° at freezing is far more useful than I suspected it would be, and having less granular degrees gives them more meaning, which makes understanding them easier.
Seriously, I struggle to express just how useful below-freezing temperatures being negative is. -5°C means so much more to me than 23°F, and that’s after thirty years of using Fahrenheit and only six of using Celsius.
