• jws_shadotak@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    11 hours ago

    I mean… that’s literally half though

    edit: I am not a science man and I am in over my head in this argument

    • FiskFisk33@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 hours ago

      to make the argument even simpler, that phrase wouldn’t even mean the same thing to an english person as it would to an american.

      In fahrenheit those temps would convert to 95f and 158f.

      • tetris11@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 hours ago

        But °C was mentioned in the units, and its well understood that 0°C is a cold temperature for humans.

        I’m not a fan of marketing doublespeak either, but I think the right scale and right terminology was used here. They cut the temperature in half, in Celsius, on the basis that 0°C is very cold.

        • TonyOstrich@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          54 minutes ago

          But centigrade isn’t a measure of absolute units and is disingenuous. Using your argument it requires the consumer/reader to make a number of inferences or assumptions which isn’t a good method of communication in general. It is perfectly valid to say that the cooler took CPU temperatures from 70°C to 35°C.

          Why not just say that. It’s an impressive stat!

          Scales exist for a reason. Cutting 70°C in half is by definition -101.5°C. But let’s assumed somehow everyone is on the same page and that anything below 0°C should just be ignored in this specific scenario and not any other (confusing right?), saying the temperature was cut in half is still confusing! Half from where? Did it go from 20°C to 10°C? From 80°C to 40°C? It just doesn’t mean anything and as said before I would argue just stating the numbers is more impressive and informative.

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 hours ago

      If you convert those temperatures to Kelvin, they become 308K and 343K. Since Kelvin is absolute and we’re measuring the same material, this tells you how much more thermal energy is there and their actual proportion to each other.

      • jws_shadotak@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        10 hours ago

        thanks, this makes a lot more sense.

        That being said, 70C down to 35C is a huge difference, relative to the temperature ranges we live in

        • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          42 minutes ago

          I just want to chime in and say I appreciate your willingness to absorb knowledge, as well as not doing the “I was mistaken so I’ll delete my comment” thing so that other people can read along and learn as well.

    • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      12 hours ago

      But it’s not.

      Celsius and Faernheit are interval scales, not rational scales. The absolute change from one number to the next is consistent, but since you can go into the negatives, 1 is not double 2.

      Kelvin and Rankine are rational because they use an absolute zero.