• 3 Posts
  • 8 Comments
Joined 9 months ago
cake
Cake day: December 24th, 2023

help-circle
  • Fully agree.

    My take as of late is that any 3rd party candidate who runs in our two party system can’t possibly be serious. They make a huge show, maybe get a message out, but almost always torpedo the party closest to them.

    With the Stein’s and RFKs in the news, it’s all sexy flashy publicity without any serious effort to have a 3rd party win.

    That said, there is another 3rd party personality that you might not have heard of in a while: Andrew Yang.

    I actually believe he is serious about electoral reform, in fact that’s the one issue his Forward Party is about. He and his team have worked quietly to help get ranked choice vote in local elections. He is not running for president as a spoiler candidate. He is not running for senate as an independent. He is putting in the work along with fairvote.org to make the structural changes needed to have viable 3rd party campaigns. We saw what happened in Alaska when ranked choice vote was present- they kept Sarah Palin from holding a Senate seat and elected a Democrat instead.

    If we had the NPVIC and ranked choice vote, our democracy would be much more representative, collaborative, and stable.





  • meep_launcher@lemm.eetoScience Memes@mander.xyzBurning Up
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    9 days ago

    So I had to look up the Boltzmann constant and… That’s a lot of math.

    I think you have a point on the decreasing human temperature. It looks like the decrease is at 0.05°F every decade, which actually is quite a bit. If it was something like 0.005°F, I’d say that that’s a problem for the people of the year 2500 to solve.

    That said, the reason it’s been decreasing seems to be due to medical advances and not some change in the Earth’s gravity or climate change. I would be surprised to see humans in the year 2500 having an average body temperature of 72.9°F, or closing in on 0°F in the year 3,984. I imagine there will be fluctuations, but there’s got to be a lower limit to what is physically possible.

    I’d still defend the Celsius number, since even though there are changes due to air pressure, it’s changing over space and not time. In the year 2500, water at sea level will still freeze at 0°C.

    I think my big thing is I’m less concerned about a logically consistent scale, and more towards a scale that’s geared to the emotional side of temperature.

    Thinking outloud moment

    If we are going for the emotional side of temperature specifically, we would also need to factor in wind, humidity, sunlight, what season it is, etc. and that’s a lot of variables, and even then that’s how you get the wind-chill factor. But even that is almost completely subjective. I feel like that scale would go from “IT’S GOTTA BE NEGATIVE A MILLION FUCKIN’ DEGREES” to “I FEEL LIKE IM ON THE SURFACE OF THE SUN, so like a bazillion degrees” and then we go to the traffic report.

    Either way, it’s not a perfect scale, but I’d still take that over the other two.


  • meep_launcher@lemm.eetoScience Memes@mander.xyzBurning Up
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 days ago

    I present the temperature scale that I made up- the Human Scale (H°)

    I thought about the Fahrenheit vs Celsius debate, and I think both have practical uses, however I think combined they could make a very practical scale.

    Fahrenheit: while my American sensibilities agree that 100° is a good marker for what % of my patience is used up to cut a bitch, I think a similar place would be the average human body temperature. For this reason, 100°H = 98.6°F . It’s not a perfect match, but it can still give us the satisfaction of “IT’S 100°!?” while having practical implications for medical uses “your body temperature is 102°, 2° warmer than average”.

    Celsius: I think this scale makes a ton of sense for colder temperatures. When the thermometer reads 0°, that’s when you can expect snow. For this reason, 0°H = 0°C.

    The conversation rates are:

    H = (F-32) × 1.5

    H= C × 2.7

    More precise is

    H = (F-32) × 1.501501501…

    H = C × 2.7027027027…

    While using the freezing point of water and the average human body temperature seem like inconsistent and arbitrary benchmarks, my goal is less about consistency and more about practicality for everyday use.

    Now watch this scale grow as big as Esperanto.