Maybe combined with recycle?

Replied to wrong comment sorry

No you're right.
Which is why kelvin was invented.
But kelvin would be inconvenient to use in daily life, which Celsius isn't.
And seeing as they are basically the same system, unlike Fahrenheit, there's no reason to use Kelvin in daily life.

Celcius isn't a bad system at all

When it was made, people didn't know there was an absolute zero, so arguing that it's not good because it's zero point isn't actual zero is shit.
It's based on water at atmosphere pressure, same as weight and acidity, which is perfectly logical and scientific.

Fahrenheit is based on the freezing of water as well, except it uses a saline solution for no reason, and another totally unrelated standard for 100. Scientifically, it's moronic.

It was good when it was made. Science has progressed. It is not good any more. You can't just ignore new information and say that it's still good.

No you're right.
Which is why kelvin was invented.
But kelvin would be inconvenient to use in daily life, which Celsius isn't.
And seeing as they are basically the same system, unlike Fahrenheit, there's no reason to use Kelvin in daily life.

Except the Fahrenheit system uses the temperature of a solution of brine made from equal parts of ice and salt as zero, and a best estimate of average human body temperature as 100.
And Celsius uses water at atmosphere pressure because it's useful as a base definition because it's not only abundant, but also the only substance that naturally exists in all three states.

There's a reason why they didn't use Fahrenheit to define kelvin, and why you'd be laughed out of the room if you used it in any scientific context.

Sure, but "this bad system isn't quite as bad as that bad system" isn't really the best argument. As colloquial systems for understanding how hot or cold something is at a glance the two are about the same, in scientific use they're also about the same, not much point in differentiating really.

Celcius isn't a bad system at all

When it was made, people didn't know there was an absolute zero, so arguing that it's not good because it's zero point isn't actual zero is shit.
It's based on water at atmosphere pressure, same as weight and acidity, which is perfectly logical and scientific.

Fahrenheit is based on the freezing of water as well, except it uses a saline solution for no reason, and another totally unrelated standard for 100. Scientifically, it's moronic.

It was good when it was made. Science has progressed. It is not good any more. You can't just ignore new information and say that it's still good.

No you're right.
Which is why kelvin was invented.
But kelvin would be inconvenient to use in daily life, which Celsius isn't.
And seeing as they are basically the same system, unlike Fahrenheit, there's no reason to use Kelvin in daily life.

Most internet arguments boil down to "calm down guys it's not that big of a deal, get over it" anyway.

0 Celsius means water freezes
100 Celsius means water boils

Then we should all use Kelvin, except that Celsius is for the common people who don't care how much energy is in something, it is far more applicable to 99% of the population since it measures the boiling and freezing temperatures of water in a very clear and simple matter, something that applies to all types of people all around the world.
Lower-class housewives in India don't care about the amount of energy in their stove, they care about how close they are to making water boil.

That's true, it's a good indicator of temperature as most people know it. Just pointing out the hypocrisy of the "fuck stupid america" style of the content, when it's also touting poor systems.

Except the Fahrenheit system uses the temperature of a solution of brine made from equal parts of ice and salt as zero, and a best estimate of average human body temperature as 100.
And Celsius uses water at atmosphere pressure because it's useful as a base definition because it's not only abundant, but also the only substance that naturally exists in all three states.

There's a reason why they didn't use Fahrenheit to define kelvin, and why you'd be laughed out of the room if you used it in any scientific context.

Sure, but "this bad system isn't quite as bad as that bad system" isn't really the best argument. As colloquial systems for understanding how hot or cold something is at a glance the two are about the same, in scientific use they're also about the same, not much point in differentiating really.

Celcius isn't a bad system at all

When it was made, people didn't know there was an absolute zero, so arguing that it's not good because it's zero point isn't actual zero is shit.
It's based on water at atmosphere pressure, same as weight and acidity, which is perfectly logical and scientific.

Fahrenheit is based on the freezing of water as well, except it uses a saline solution for no reason, and another totally unrelated standard for 100. Scientifically, it's moronic.

It was good when it was made. Science has progressed. It is not good any more. You can't just ignore new information and say that it's still good.

No you're right.
Which is why kelvin was invented.
But kelvin would be inconvenient to use in daily life, which Celsius isn't.
And seeing as they are basically the same system, unlike Fahrenheit, there's no reason to use Kelvin in daily life.

Most internet arguments boil down to "calm down guys it's not that big of a deal, get over it" anyway.

I don't remember all of the details, learned in a science class like 4 years ago. Basically a good quality scale has certain characteristics. The distance between any two consecutive points should be the same, equivalent distances should be equal (ie. the amount of change from 2-6 should be the same as 4-8), zero should be the bottom/start because having negatives ruins the very concept of a 0 in measurement and means that you're measuring the wrong thing. That's why science often uses kelvin to measure temperature because it's a measurement of the amount of energy in something, which is the definition of heat. It ends at 0, meaning no energy at all. According to science "cold" doesn't really exist, just less heat, which is why having a negative temperature in celcius sort of makes it ineffective. Celcius, if I remember right, is a measurement of the energy needed to alter the temperature of water or something like that.

0 Celsius means water freezes
100 Celsius means water boils

Then we should all use Kelvin, except that Celsius is for the common people who don't care how much energy is in something, it is far more applicable to 99% of the population since it measures the boiling and freezing temperatures of water in a very clear and simple matter, something that applies to all types of people all around the world.
Lower-class housewives in India don't care about the amount of energy in their stove, they care about how close they are to making water boil.

That's true, it's a good indicator of temperature as most people know it. Just pointing out the hypocrisy of the "fuck stupid america" style of the content, when it's also touting poor systems.

Except the Fahrenheit system uses the temperature of a solution of brine made from equal parts of ice and salt as zero, and a best estimate of average human body temperature as 100.
And Celsius uses water at atmosphere pressure because it's useful as a base definition because it's not only abundant, but also the only substance that naturally exists in all three states.

There's a reason why they didn't use Fahrenheit to define kelvin, and why you'd be laughed out of the room if you used it in any scientific context.

Sure, but "this bad system isn't quite as bad as that bad system" isn't really the best argument. As colloquial systems for understanding how hot or cold something is at a glance the two are about the same, in scientific use they're also about the same, not much point in differentiating really.

Celcius isn't a bad system at all

When it was made, people didn't know there was an absolute zero, so arguing that it's not good because it's zero point isn't actual zero is shit.
It's based on water at atmosphere pressure, same as weight and acidity, which is perfectly logical and scientific.

Fahrenheit is based on the freezing of water as well, except it uses a saline solution for no reason, and another totally unrelated standard for 100. Scientifically, it's moronic.

It was good when it was made. Science has progressed. It is not good any more. You can't just ignore new information and say that it's still good.

No you're right.
Which is why kelvin was invented.
But kelvin would be inconvenient to use in daily life, which Celsius isn't.
And seeing as they are basically the same system, unlike Fahrenheit, there's no reason to use Kelvin in daily life.

Most internet arguments boil down to "calm down guys it's not that big of a deal, get over it" anyway.

I only ever used a shiny in a game once. Was a shiny Drowzee I found in a nuzlock challenge on HeartGold. Had to use it. When it died, I stored it and now its on my pokemon X game, a happy lil Hypno.

Wouldve been but shit stats and impish nature lol i though bout re training it on x

Lol yeah, it all depends on what you want it for. I just consider a shiny like a trophy, screw the stats.

I only ever used a shiny in a game once. Was a shiny Drowzee I found in a nuzlock challenge on HeartGold. Had to use it. When it died, I stored it and now its on my pokemon X game, a happy lil Hypno.

I just come upon mine randomly. Was lookin for a snorunt and found a shiny medicham

Nice

Wouldve been but shit stats and impish nature lol i though bout re training it on x

Lol yeah, it all depends on what you want it for. I just consider a shiny like a trophy, screw the stats.

I only ever used a shiny in a game once. Was a shiny Drowzee I found in a nuzlock challenge on HeartGold. Had to use it. When it died, I stored it and now its on my pokemon X game, a happy lil Hypno.