this post was submitted on 22 Jun 2025
308 points (99.0% liked)

Science Memes

15322 readers
2573 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 34 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] essell@lemmy.world 28 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Wow.

It's zero degrees here in June.

Weird.

[–] Zron@lemmy.world 19 points 1 day ago (2 children)

How did you hear negative chirps?

Can I learn this power?

[–] Revan343@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 day ago
[–] psud@aussie.zone -1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Using the metric version you can get zero with no chirps. The method doesn't work at all for the current temperature though, you can't get -1°C any way

[–] Zron@lemmy.world 1 points 12 hours ago

That’s but how math works, doesn’t matter if you use the American or metric formula

[–] a_wild_mimic_appears@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Nope,, 0 / 3 = 0 -> 0 + 4 = 4°C

Division/Multiplication always goes before Addition/Subtraction.

[–] A_Chilean_Cyborg@feddit.cl 2 points 23 hours ago

Hello fellow southernhemispherian, how does it feel bring safe from nuclear winter?

[–] sevon@lemmy.kde.social 77 points 1 day ago (2 children)
[–] Pazuzu@midwest.social 26 points 1 day ago

metric is great until you need to do anything practical with it like converting cricket chirps to degrees ^/s^

[–] ThrowawayPermanente@sh.itjust.works 54 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Assuming one spherical cricket in a vacuum

[–] captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 22 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

You can't hear a cricket chirp in a vacuum.

The motor is too loud.

[–] Widdershins@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I feel like parentheses don't belong in explaining math if they aren't used appropriately.

[–] LanguageIsCool@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

30 chirps + (added to) 40 = 70

[–] MyFriendGodzilla@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

But what species is the cricket?

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 34 points 1 day ago (1 children)

...or count the chirps in 8 seconds and add 4.

Why am I taking 25seconds and dividing by 3? Accuracy?

[–] TheMetaleek@sh.itjust.works 34 points 1 day ago (1 children)

My guess would be better approximation as you avoid a "fluke", as 8 second is a very short time where nothing could easily happen even with crickets being present

[–] yimby@lemmy.ca 14 points 1 day ago

I'm just bothered they chose divide by 3, instead of 16 seconds divide by 2 which is wayyy easier

[–] NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 1 points 22 hours ago

Test or One-Day?

[–] ChicoSuave@lemmy.world 16 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Glad to know it's America and crickets that find fahrenheit more convenient for temperature.

[–] Today@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I think that's how we got fahrenheit.

[–] kurwa@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Actually it was originally based on the freezing temperature of a brine and human body temperature.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit

[–] appelkooskonfyt@lemm.ee 5 points 1 day ago

No I'm pretty sure it was crickets.

[–] psud@aussie.zone 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Really it was "find something that is different to the reseller scales"

[–] kurwa@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

It was actually based on an existing scale called the Rømer scale

[–] HollowNaught@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Ah, so 32° is when an unknown concentration of human brine freezes, and 98.6° is the average human temperature

What am I even reading any more

[–] Macallan@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I think the brine probably froze at 0° F, which ended up correlating to 32° F for regular water. And the body temperature at 100° F ended up correlating to 212° F for water to boil. That's the way I understand it anyway.

[–] HollowNaught@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Fahrenheit temperature scale, scale based on 32° for the freezing point of water and 212° for the boiling point of water, the interval between the two being divided into 180 equal parts. The 18th-century physicist Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit originally took as the zero of his scale the temperature of an equal ice-salt mixture and selected the values of 30° and 90° for the freezing point of water and normal body temperature, respectively; these later were revised to 32° and 96°, but the final scale required an adjustment to 98.6° for the latter value.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

What the hell was the brine that it required it to be 32° below the freezing point of water? Even salt water would have frozen by that point.

[–] Macallan@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Far fewer people know that 0° and 100° in Fahrenheit also correspond to specific real-world values. 0°F corresponds to a temperature where a brine is made of equal parts ice, water, and ammonium chloride. Such a brine, interestingly, is a frigorific mixture, meaning that it stabilizes to a specific temperature regardless of the temperature that each component started at. Thus, it makes for a really nice laboratory-stable definition of a temperature. Similarly, 100°F was initially set at "blood heat" temperature, or the human body temperature. While not super precise, it was a fairly stable value. As good as anything in the early 1700s.

Source from a quick Google search: https://gregable.com/2014/06/temperature-scales.html

[–] DudeImMacGyver@kbin.earth 14 points 1 day ago (2 children)

How do you count just one cricket's chirps? There are usually tons of them.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 2 points 1 day ago

Everyone counts their own crickets and then you add the results together.

[–] SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org 1 points 1 day ago

Count faster.

[–] not_woody_shaw@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

I was expecting some kind of Duckworth-Lewis formula.