what’s to work out? just provide a phone number and city as your address, and one day someone will call you and mutter something unintelligible and you say “TELEGRAM… TELEGRAM” and then they telegram you to ask where you are and you send your location and then they show up with your grand piano on the back of their moto and ask for a mystery extra delivery fee.
fake: OP is not a frog in a suit
gay: OP did girl kissing
That doesn’t even stand up on its own terms.
Farenheit doesn’t “intuitively” tell you whether there’s going to be ice on the road or whether your pipes are liable to freeze, and also has the added pain in the ass that on a very hot day you need 3 digits to represent the number instead of 2, and doesn’t even compensate for it by removing the possibility of negative values which can still also happen.
On top of that the extra scale doesn’t give you a perceivable difference between the numbers, that is to say, I could put you in a room and ask you if it was 70F or 71F and you’d basically be guessing.
Celsius on the other hand is eminently relatable: negative number means ice/snow, single digit means heavy coat, tens means lighter coat/sleeves, twenties means nice, thirties means hot, forties means remain indoors.
Imagine if Mazda made an mx-5 EV or Toyota made an 86 EV.
I’m pro-EV in general (pro-trains notwithstanding), but don’t see the point in that. I’d rather they just got the people who designed the MX-5 and GT86 to design EV sports cars on their own terms. An MX-5 EV would just be there to remind you how much more fun the ICE version was to drive.
You’ve hit on my bugbear with most post-apocalyptic fiction: pretty much universally humans have shown that they will tend towards co-operation when placed in situations of hardship. But most writers, game designers and preppers want you to think that when civilization collapses everyone will be like “there’s no rules any more! I can murder whoever I want and take their stuff!”
The alt text on that strip seems especially pertinent
The first line was broadly right. But you blundered on the second, especially by phrasing it in a condescending way, because how many figures you should quote to depends on more context than just how many figures the input was quoted to.