• Glide@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    This is actually a super fascinating example of the way data can be displayed in a technically correct way to lead the viewer to completely invalid conclusions.

  • naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    wait 100 F is only 38 degrees?

    Wow that’s funny. I’ve seen so many people complain about extreme heat below 100 F.

    I get that what you’re not used to is difficult but like 38 degrees is a relatively ordinary (now) summer day for me.

    From how people spoke about it I thought 100 F was more lile 45

  • Darrell_Winfield@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Ackchyually

    Fever is not 100F. A fever is defined as 100.4F. Why 100.4 when 100 is a much easier to remember and handle number? Because fever is defined in humans as 38C, and that converts to 100.4F.

    • Ultraviolet@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      That’s a sigfig error. A fever is 38C, which is 2 significant digits. Converting to 100° F goes up an order of magnitude so you get a free sigfig, but unless the original number was 38.0C, you don’t get that 0.4, you’re implying precision that the original measurement never gave you.