Again on 0-based vs. 1-based indexing

Re:Again on 0-based vs. 1-based indexing by xxs on Wednesday January 20, 2021 @02:26PM (#25850766)

so the question is: what's worse - imperial or 1-based index?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Again on 0-based vs. 1-based indexing by carlhjerpe on Wednesday January 20, 2021 @06:46PM (#25853432)

Imperial, because of it's vagueness people use other measurements as well. Something is x stories high. Something is a "stones throw away".

Though i do appreciate Fahrenheit for how it scales with humans. 0 is really damn cold, 100 is really damn hot, while in Celcius 0 is kinda chilly and 100 is instant death.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Again on 0-based vs. 1-based indexing by xxs on Wednesday January 20, 2021 @07:40PM (#25853862)

>100 is really damn hot,

It's actually supposed to be the body temperature. Due to imprecise measurements, it's actually having a light fever. Flip note: C scales the same - 0 is the water freezing point, and then you have the same scaling as F but in 5s instead of 10s. [and you gotta remember: (f-2pow5)*5/9].

That's an old debate, yet if you are born/used to C, F is pretty horrific.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Again on 0-based vs. 1-based indexing by carlhjerpe on Thursday January 21, 2021 @02:15AM (#25856368)

I forgot to mention that I'm Swedish and use C daily, I just think the F scale makes more sense for humans

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Again on 0-based vs. 1-based indexing by fomine3 on Wednesday January 20, 2021 @09:50PM (#25854734)

100C isn't instant death, see sauna. Maybe you compare 0C air and 100C water so to be fair, 0C water is maybe death within dozen of minutes

[ Parent | on HN ]