Ask the crickets

329 points · 34 comments · view on lemmy.world

34 Comments

sevon@lemmy.kde.social · 78 pts · 1y (2 replies)

Americans and their units

Pazuzu@midwest.social · 30 pts · 1y

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

Botzo@lemmy.world · 24 pts · 1y
ThrowawayPermanente@sh.itjust.works · 58 pts · 1y (2 replies)

Assuming one spherical cricket in a vacuum

captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works · 26 pts · 1y

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

The motor is too loud.

C8r9VwDUTeY3ZufQRYvq@sopuli.xyz · 2 pts · 1y

Ignoring air resistance?

essell@lemmy.world · 36 pts · 1y (6 replies)

Wow.

It's zero degrees here in June.

Weird.

Zron@lemmy.world · 23 pts · 1y (4 replies)

How did you hear negative chirps?

Can I learn this power?

Revan343@lemmy.ca · 11 pts · 1y

Try salvia

psud@aussie.zone · -2 pts · 1y (2 replies)

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

a_wild_mimic_appears@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 8 pts · 1y

Nope,, 0 / 3 = 0 -> 0 + 4 = 4°C

Division/Multiplication always goes before Addition/Subtraction.

Zron@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1y

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

A_Chilean_Cyborg@feddit.cl · 2 pts · 1y

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

wewbull@feddit.uk · 36 pts · 1y (2 replies)

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

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

TheMetaleek@sh.itjust.works · 38 pts · 1y (1 reply)

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 · 19 pts · 1y

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

ChicoSuave@lemmy.world · 19 pts · 1y (10 replies)

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

Today@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 1y (9 replies)

I think that's how we got fahrenheit.

kurwa@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1y (8 replies)

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 · 7 pts · 1y

No I'm pretty sure it was crickets.

HollowNaught@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 1y (4 replies)

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 pts · 1y (3 replies)

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 · 4 pts · 1y

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 · 3 pts · 1y (1 reply)

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 · 4 pts · 1y

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

psud@aussie.zone · 4 pts · 1y (1 reply)

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

kurwa@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1y

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

DudeImMacGyver@kbin.earth · 18 pts · 1y (2 replies)

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

echodot@feddit.uk · 6 pts · 1y

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

SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org · 2 pts · 1y

Count faster.

Widdershins@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 1y (1 reply)

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

LanguageIsCool@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 1y
[ removed ]
MyFriendGodzilla@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 1y

But what species is the cricket?

not_woody_shaw@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1y

I was expecting some kind of Duckworth-Lewis formula.

NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone · 1 pts · 1y

Test or One-Day?