Singing in the rain...



  •  No comment, find the WTF yourselves:

     <img src="http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/7669/rainsh8.jpg" mce_src="http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/7669/rainsh8.jpg" alt="iGoogle weather showing current condition as " rain="" at="" -12°c="" (10.4°f)="" align="" border="" vspace="" width="373" height="216" hspace="">



  •  I blame the lack of a proper English word for "particles/droplets falling out of the sky" for it.
    In dutch we have "neerslag" which means exactly that. It's usually used as a synonym for rain but can also be used for e.g. hail or snow. After Chernobyl the news even spoke of radioactive "neerslag" (radioactive particles falling out of the sky)


    WTF meter doesn't even make it to 15


  • Congratulations, you can probably read. Now look at the pretty pictures, too!

    Please fix your WTF-meter. Thank you!



  • The today weather is the usually the predominant forecast for the day. The current weather could be at any time eg early in the morning long before the weather clears and the day is bright and cold.

    The rain could be freezing rain caused by rain starting in higher altitude warm air and falling through a layer of very cold air where the temperature is actually measured.

     



  •  I have to give you some credit, I didn't think of that... But here's another WTF: we haven't had rain/snow/whatever for a week and that screenshot was taken hours ago. Now it's showing -16°C and current conditions are "fog." These are the current conditions and they change quite often, they're definitely not the forecast for today, that's in the picture below "Today".

    I don't see how they can make such horrible mistakes... They're always waaaay off with their reports; for example, they've kept predicting snow for "tomorrow" every day for about a week, until they started predicting snow for "today" and in a couple of days, they were finally right. I remember I had some Firefox extension that showing rain for a few days, but the sky was always clear and actually we had some serious drouts in that period. I can understand they can't accurately predict weather, but sometimes they're just AWFULLY wrong. I guess they're the same people that drive the economy, considering it's evolution, and now I feel smarter because I made a comment that tried to correlate a post about weather with the current economic crysis.

    Rly, why are they so AWFULLY wrong about the weather most of the times?



  • @dtech said:

     I blame the lack of a proper English word for "particles/droplets falling out of the sky" for it.
    In dutch we have "neerslag" which means exactly that. It's usually used as a synonym for rain but can also be used for e.g. hail or snow. After Chernobyl the news even spoke of radioactive "neerslag" (radioactive particles falling out of the sky)

     

    What about precipitation?



  •  I've already said it, but let me try to make things clear again: the pictures are also suggesting rain.

    <img src="http://img387.imageshack.us/img387/5296/rain2wf2.jpg" mce_src="http://img387.imageshack.us/img387/5296/rain2wf2.jpg" alt="iGoogle weather showing the text " at="" -12°c,="" with="" arrows="" pointing="" out="" that="" weather="" thumb="" also="" sugests="" rain="" (for="" the="" visually="" impaired)="" align="" border="" vspace="" width="373" height="216" hspace="">



  • @rohypnol said:

     I've already said it, but let me try to make things clear again: the pictures are also suggesting rain.

    iGoogle weather showing the text

    Well, the second picture labelled "Sun" is actually showing a sun. No WTF here 🙂



  • Nobody noticed that the current temperature is lower than the "low"?

    Oh... They're using Canadian temperatures instead of Farenheit!



  • @tOmcOlins said:

    Oh... They're using Canadian temperatures instead of Farenheit!
     

    Well, at least we don't use a temperature which bases it's high point on the highest Mr. Fahrenheit could find by plugging a thermometer in his ass.



  • @dtech said:

    Well, at least we don't use a temperature which bases it's high point on the highest Mr. Fahrenheit could find by plugging a thermometer in his ass.

    QFT.



  • @dtech said:

    @tOmcOlins said:

    Oh... They're using Canadian temperatures instead of Farenheit!
     

    Well, at least we don't use a temperature which bases it's high point on the highest Mr. Fahrenheit could find by plugging a thermometer in his ass.

    So, what is the boiling point of water in °Goatse?

     



  • @rohypnol said:

    Rly, why are they so AWFULLY wrong about the weather most of the times?
     

    Belgium is a small country and still the forecast is wrong a lot of the time. This is because the weather can change drastically in just a few tens of kilometres. We get typically a forecast giving the weather for the 'centre' (Brussels), the coast at the northwest and the mountains at the southeast. If you happen to live exactly between two of these points, there is no telling what the weather is going to be in your area.

    Also, rain is often quite local. A rainstorm at the horizon is only 5-10km away but you're sitting high and dry laughing at the weather report.



  • @dtech said:

    @tOmcOlins said:

    Oh... They're using Canadian temperatures instead of Farenheit!
    Well, at least we don't use a temperature which bases it's high point on the highest Mr. Fahrenheit could find by plugging a thermometer in his ass.

    Perhaps, but it's still less arbitrary than Canadian.



  • @boomzilla said:

    Perhaps, but it's still less arbitrary than Canadian.

     

    Are you saying °C is arbitrary and more confusing than °F? Are you really THAT ignorant or were you just playing dumb?

    Check out Wikipedia for Fahrenheit and Celsius if you really don't know...



  • @rohypnol said:

    Are you saying °C is arbitrary and more confusing than °F?
    Yes, I am.  Why would I care so much about the freezing point and boiling point of water?  Ok, setting the freezing point of water at zero would maybe be more convenient, since it does affect weather, though you end up dealing with negative temperatures more often.  On the other hand, we pretty much never need to worry about fractional degrees.  The scale of °C is just silly for daily life.  °F was meant to be used by people, and is based on common temperatures that we encounter.  What is supposedly so difficult about Fahrenheit?

    The decades of the scale actually have meaining, and are a useful and convenient shorthand.  I suppose you're more interested in boiling water than I am, though.



  • @boomzilla said:

    The decades of the scale actually have meaining, and are a useful and convenient shorthand.  I suppose you're more interested in boiling water than I am, though.

    I believe the above quoted lines are the only thing you said with which I would agree.  98.6 °F is normal human body temperature, and that's one of the temperatures for which Fahrenheit was originally calibrated.  From what I've seen, the primary reasons °C are more commonly fractional is due to an increased desire for precision and due to some people wanting their °C measurements to convert to an integer °F.

    The only reason I use °F more than °C is that I live in a country filled with people who use °F, and so I can communicate better with the people immediately around me if I do as well.



  • @boomzilla said:

    Ok, setting the freezing point of water at zero would maybe be more convenient, since it does affect weather, though you end up dealing with negative temperatures more often.
     

    Speak for yourself. I don't think the outside temperature went below 0°C last winter at all. And what is wrong with negative numbers? Maybe everyone should use Kelvin so that you never get negative numbers. Then the USA can use Rankine just to be different from the rest of the world: at least it is just a multiplier conversion instead of the ±32° difference.




  • @boomzilla said:

    @rohypnol said:

    Are you saying °C is arbitrary and more confusing than °F?
    Yes, I am.  Why would I care so much about the freezing point and boiling point of water?  Ok, setting the freezing point of water at zero would maybe be more convenient, since it does affect weather, though you end up dealing with negative temperatures more often.  On the other hand, we pretty much never need to worry about fractional degrees.  The scale of °C is just silly for daily life.  °F was meant to be used by people, and is based on common temperatures that we encounter.  What is supposedly so difficult about Fahrenheit?

    The decades of the scale actually have meaining, and are a useful and convenient shorthand.  I suppose you're more interested in boiling water than I am, though.

     

     You are kidding, right? Let's see, freezing vs. boiling point of the most important substance to human life vs:

     0 - Freezing point of a mixture of ammonium chloride and water

    32 - Alcohol/mercury termometer's lowest point in reference to the above

    96 (NOT 98.6 on the original scale) - Temperature of an armpit

    Oh yes, that makes much more sense and is so much easier to remember than freezing and boiling of water.



  • @boomzilla said:

    Yes, I am.  Why would I care so much about the freezing point and boiling point of water?

    At least with Celsius one can verify the accuracy of a thermometer by putting it in boiling water or ice water, which is generally useful when one needs said thermometer to confirm that a food substance is at a specific temperature for health and safety reasons.
    @boomzilla said:
    Ok, setting the freezing point of water at zero would maybe be more convenient, since it does affect weather, though you end up dealing with negative temperatures more often.

    Also if one gripes about having to deal with negative temperatures heaven forbid the outside air drops below the freezing point of ammonium chloride and water, something which your beloved capital city (as an example) has been known to drop below.



  • @boomzilla said:

    @rohypnol said:

    Are you saying °C is arbitrary and more confusing than °F?
    Yes, I am.  Why would I care so much about the freezing point and boiling point of water?

    Uhh, it's only the single most vital chemical in your entire existence.



  • @Lingerance said:

    @boomzilla said:
    Yes, I am.  Why would I care so much about the freezing point and boiling point of water?

    At least with Celsius one can verify the accuracy of a thermometer by putting it in boiling water or ice water, which is generally useful when one needs said thermometer to confirm that a food substance is at a specific temperature for health and safety reasons.
    Why couldn't this be done with Fahrenheit?  Is this an "easier to remember" argument in disguise?

    @Lingerance said:

    @boomzilla said:
    Ok, setting the freezing point of water at zero would maybe be more convenient, since it does affect weather, though you end up dealing with negative temperatures more often.

    Also if one gripes about having to deal with negative temperatures heaven forbid the outside air drops below the freezing point of ammonium chloride and water, something which your beloved capital city (as an example) has been known to drop below.
    Yes, either way, in some places you'll obviously end up with negative numbers, and I think the sentence above indicates that it's not a big deal.  Just a minor convenience.

     However, why should the boiling point of water be so important for a temperature scale?  Yes, Fahrenheit came about somewhat randomly, but there seems to be agreement that it was at least somewhat based on a temperature relevant to humans.  It's certainly amusing that everyone is so concerned about the ease of remembering the boiling point of water.  I suppose you all really are more interested in boiling water than I am. I mean, sure, water is important to life and all, but are you all so brainwashed by the metric system that you can't examine its foundation?

    I suppose for scientific purposes, a scale like that could be more useful, though it seems that Kelvin would be much more suited, since it doesn't have an artificial baseline.  So if that one is more rational, why not use it in daily life?  Ah, right, because it's inconvenient for people and our daily lives.  No one here has argued why the scale of Celsius is better.  But since it revolves around liquid water, it must be better.  Brillant.

     



  • A few days ago - perhaps last year - I saw a public screen where the prediction for temperature, humidity, etc. was "ND" (which would be "N/A" in English).

    That's hardly a WTF these days, but... the text (labels included) was yellow on white. Yuck!

    I regret not having taken a picture.



  • @tOmcOlins said:

    Nobody noticed that the current temperature is lower than the "low"?

    Yes, sometimes the actual temperature is lower than the predicted minimum.



  •  The whole Celsius/Fahrenheit discussion makes no sense. Some of you use one scale, others - the other. To guys like me, 80 degrees F is completely meaningless, as is 5 inches. 21 degrees Celsius is a perfect room temperature, and under 10 degrees you can see your breath. Others will find 45 degrees Fahrenheit a perfect temperature for opening a white wine bottle, I say 6 degrees C.

    The point is, all of these are situations you can relate to - every day. That's why you use them and find them useful. The systems are equal, and one is superior to the other only in edge cases.

    So please fucking deal with it and find another, more relevant subject to discuss, like - the real wtf is that someone paid for a system designed to describe weather that can't deal with weather, provide substantial arguments.



  • @boomzilla said:

    @Lingerance said:

    @boomzilla said:
    Yes, I am.  Why would I care so much about the freezing point and boiling point of water?

    At least with Celsius one can verify the accuracy of a thermometer by putting it in boiling water or ice water, which is generally useful when one needs said thermometer to confirm that a food substance is at a specific temperature for health and safety reasons.
    Why couldn't this be done with Fahrenheit?  Is this an "easier to remember" argument in disguise?

    Because there is no such thing as standard human body temperature.  It varies by as much as 2°F (maybe even more, I'm not a medical expert) between individuals.  Now I admit that the boiling point of water varies by a similar amount due to normal weather effects, but at least it's possible to accurately calibrate a Celsius thermometer in a controlled environment.  You could argue that the Fahrenheit scale is calibrated to Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit's body, but unfortunately said body has long ago ceased to maintain its constant temperature.

    I'm not claiming that the choice of calibration points of the Celsius scale are any less arbitary, even if they are more well-defined.  In fact, I argue that it is impossible to craft a temperature scale without at least one arbitary choice.  For a low point, absolute zero makes for a non-arbitary choice.  But we can't set the high point by thermal energy, since temperature is tied to the specific heat capacity of each substance.  We could say that Hydrogen is the least arbitary substance, being the simplest element.  But even for a single substance, there are several temperatures we may use for calibration.  Melting and boiling points are a bit difficult because they vary by pressure.  Triple point is better, since it exists at a specific temperature and pressure.  Some examples of temperatures on the hydrogen-triple-point scale:

    • 13.8033K = 1 unit
    • lowest temperature recorded on Earth = 13.33 units
    • freezing point of water = 19.79 units
    • human body temperature = [22.40, 22.47] units
    • highest temperature recorded on Earth = 23.98 units
    • boiling point of water = 27.03 units
    • surface of sun = 418.6 units

    Note that I'm not trying to say that this scale would be good for practical use.  The goal of this excercise was simply to come up with the least arbitary temperature scale possible.



  •  And for the mandatory xkcd reference (but at least it's not only relevant, it's also the latest...):

     http://xkcd.com/526/



  • @tdb said:

    @boomzilla said:

    @Lingerance said:

    @boomzilla said:
    Yes, I am.  Why would I care so much about the freezing point and boiling point of water?

    At least with Celsius one can verify the accuracy of a thermometer by putting it in boiling water or ice water, which is generally useful when one needs said thermometer to confirm that a food substance is at a specific temperature for health and safety reasons.
    Why couldn't this be done with Fahrenheit?  Is this an "easier to remember" argument in disguise?

    Because there is no such thing as standard human body temperature.

     

    I must be missing something here.   

    1.  Insert thermometer into ice water.  ensure said thermometer reads (about) 32 degrees F.

    2.  Insert same termometer into boiling water.  Ensure said thermometer reads (about) 212 degrees F.

     



  • @Mel said:

     And for the mandatory xkcd reference (but at least it's not only relevant, it's also the latest...):

     http://xkcd.com/526/

    Only 14cm for a penis? Just 70 kilo for a dude?

    Must be made in Taiwan



  • @tster said:

    @tdb said:

    Because there is no such thing as standard human body temperature.

    I must be missing something here.   

    1.  Insert thermometer into ice water.  ensure said thermometer reads (about) 32 degrees F.

    2.  Insert same termometer into boiling water.  Ensure said thermometer reads (about) 212 degrees F.

    All right, that does indeed seem to be the modern definition of Fahrenheit.  So we have two temperature scales, defined by the same arbitary points of reference, with a scale factor of 5/9 and some offset.  Tell me again why one is better than the other?  Both are sufficiently fine-grained to measure weather without decimals but neither is fine-grained enough to not need decimals with human body temperatures.  The Celsius scale has the marginal benefit of a minus sign meaning snow/ice, while the Fahrenheit scale has the minor advantage of providing a more accurate measure of weather in steps of ten degrees.  Is there some common usecase I have missed that brings out a real advantage for either one?



  • @tdb said:

    Because there is no such thing as standard human body temperature. 

    Quite true. Friend of mine walked into to the Emergency Room and told them "My friends said I should come in because I have a fever of 107". Doctor said "No, you don't, you would be dead." Sure enough, 107.  Conversely, my daughter is running a fever and sick as a dog if she hits 99.

    Dude at UMaryland Medical School researched the origins of 98.6 as typical. Turns out its not a bad number, but there's no way to derive it from the huge amount of data that was available to the doctor who came up with it.



  •  There is a guide I use for converting temperatures here:

    http://www.xkcd.com/526/



  • @ijt said:

    Dude at UMaryland Medical School researched the origins of 98.6 as typical. Turns out its not a bad number, but there's no way to derive it from the huge amount of data that was available to the doctor who came up with it.

     

    Try this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_human_body_temperature

    Hopefully that would explain to some people that there is no "normal" human body temperature. The Fahrenheit scale simply makes no sense, because the points of reference are completely stupid.



  • @ijt said:

    "I have a fever of 107". Doctor said "No, you don't, you would be dead." Sure enough, 107.
     

    107F works out to almost 42 C, and if you're not dead already (a possibility), you're definitely not walking anywhere, or moving much at all. Combined with the fact that your daughter's 99 is a tiny bit over a healthy 37, makes me think your thermometer is broken.

    There's always some variation, of course, and I think I'm a bit under 37 myself, but your numbers look outside the range of what's reasonable.

    According to The Glorious All-Truth wikipedia:

    • 37°C (98.6°F) - Normal body temperature (which varies between about 36.12-37.5°C (96.8-99.5°F)
    • 38°C (100.4°F) - Sweating, feeling very uncomfortable, slightly hungry.
    • 39°C (102.2°F) - Severe sweating, flushed and very red. Fast
      heart rate and breathlessness. There may be exhaustion accompanying
      this. Children and people with epilepsy may be very likely to get
      convulsions at this point.
    • 40°C (104°F) - Fainting, dehydration, weakness, vomiting, headache and dizziness may occur as well as profuse sweating.
    • 41°C (105.8°F) - (Medical emergency)

      • Fainting, vomiting, severe headache, dizziness, confusion,
        hallucinations, delirium and drowsiness can occur. There may also be
        palpitations and breathlessness.
      • 42°C (107.6°F) - Subject may turn pale or remain flushed and
        red. They may become comatose, be in severe delirium, vomiting, and
        convulsions can occur. Blood pressure may be high or low and heart rate
        will be very fast.
      • 43°C (109.4°F) - Normally death, or there may be serious
        brain damage, continuous convulsions and shock. Cardio-respiratory
        collapse will likely occur.
      • 44°C (111.2°F) or more - Almost certainly death will occur; however, patients have been known to survive up to 46.5°C (115.7°F).[20]





  • @rohypnol said:

    The Fahrenheit scale simply makes no sense, because the points of reference are completely stupid.
    Well, that's a subjective argument.  But let's just accept for the sake of argument that the reference points are completely stupid.   Is that the sole basis for judging it?  The Celcius scale isn't much better.  Why should the boiling point of water be so special, and why should 100 be linked with it?

    The reason I prefer F is that it's at least somewhat based on human factors, i.e., temperatures that are relevant to our day to day lives.  And 100 is an interval that seems to be big enough to have a lot of divisions, while still pretty comprehensible to the typical human mind.  Regardless if that was the reason behind its creation, that's the end result.  You might as well say the meter is completely stupid because it was initially based on an incorrect assumption.  Obviously, you need things your life to be grounded by arbitrary physical factors, and that's fine.  Keep boiling that water, if that's what works for you.

    The main benefit of the metric system appears to be the ability to multiply by 10.  I suppose this was really useful back when a computer was a person.  But, as another poster pointed out, units of measure are not well ordered.  My personal utility function relies on the ease of use. Contrary to what metric snobs will tell you about the imperial system, it is pretty easy.  I suppose that's because I almost never need to know things like how many feet are in a mile.  And I don't need to know the boiling point of water to boil water.



  • @Mel said:

     And for the mandatory xkcd reference (but at least it's not only relevant, it's also the latest...):

     http://xkcd.com/526/

    @Helix said:

     There is a guide I use for converting temperatures here:

    http://www.xkcd.com/526/

    Okay, now this is just plain ridiculous.



  • @boomzilla said:

    @rohypnol said:

    The Fahrenheit scale simply makes no sense, because the points of reference are completely stupid.
    Well, that's a subjective argument.  But let's just accept for the sake of argument that the reference points are completely stupid.   Is that the sole basis for judging it?  The Celcius scale isn't much better.  Why should the boiling point of water be so special, and why should 100 be linked with it?

    The reason I prefer F is that it's at least somewhat based on human factors, i.e., temperatures that are relevant to our day to day lives.  And 100 is an interval that seems to be big enough to have a lot of divisions, while still pretty comprehensible to the typical human mind.  Regardless if that was the reason behind its creation, that's the end result.  You might as well say the meter is completely stupid because it was initially based on an incorrect assumption.  Obviously, you need things your life to be grounded by arbitrary physical factors, and that's fine.  Keep boiling that water, if that's what works for you.

    The main benefit of the metric system appears to be the ability to multiply by 10.  I suppose this was really useful back when a computer was a person.  But, as another poster pointed out, units of measure are not well ordered.  My personal utility function relies on the ease of use. Contrary to what metric snobs will tell you about the imperial system, it is pretty easy.  I suppose that's because I almost never need to know things like how many feet are in a mile.  And I don't need to know the boiling point of water to boil water.

     

    While, being in the US, I don't use the metric system, and while I do agree with you that the Imperial system is not hard to use, you are just being silly to say that the metric system is no more relevant and that it is not easier.  Just because you and I grew up with the Imperial system doesn't make it better or easier to use.  Everything being a factor of 10 is actually pretty nice and easy to convert back and forth.  For example:  how many ounces in a gallon?  How many inches in 12.7 feet?  If it was "how many centimeters in 12.7 meters"  ( I know not equilivant, just making a point) then it's an easy conversion: move the decimal place...

     

    The reasy you are saying that the numbers for F make more sense for human daily life is because you grew up with them.  Saying "oh 72 degrees outside, should be nice... ", but if you grew up with C you would be able to say the same thing, only with a different number.



  • @boomzilla said:

    The reason I prefer F is that it's at least somewhat based on human factors, i.e., temperatures that are relevant to our day to day lives.

    I boil water many times a week to make food.  I also cook food in the oven, often at 200°C.  Us Finnish people have this thing called sauna, where the temperature commonly is 80°C.  I also like to know whether to expect water or snow to fall down if the sky is covered in dark clouds.  Those temperatures are relevant to my life.  Furthermore, Celsius is the temperature scale I grew up with, as I'm sure Fahrenheit is for you.

    @boomzilla said:

    And 100 is an interval that seems to be big enough to have a lot of divisions, while still pretty comprehensible to the typical human mind.  Regardless if that was the reason behind its creation, that's the end result.

    I'm still interested in knowing what situation calls for a precision between 0.5°C and 1°C, such that the Fahrenheit scale is more convenient.

    @boomzilla said:

    The main benefit of the metric system appears to be the ability to multiply by 10.  I suppose this was really useful back when a computer was a person.  But, as another poster pointed out, units of measure are not well ordered.  My personal utility function relies on the ease of use. Contrary to what metric snobs will tell you about the imperial system, it is pretty easy.  I suppose that's because I almost never need to know things like how many feet are in a mile.  And I don't need to know the boiling point of water to boil water.

    Multiplying by ten is a clear benefit, but there is something more important.  The factors involved in calculations with multiple imperial units are completely arbitary.  How many horsepower are required to accelerate a 2000-pound car to 65mph in 6 seconds?  In the metric system, the speed works out to 105km/h = 29.1m/s (I do hate the base-60 time units).  With a mass of 900kg, that means a kinetic energy of 762kJ, and attaining that in 6 seconds requires 127kW.  Add some extra for friction and other losses, and let's say the engine needs to produce 150kW.  That's about 200 horsepower for you imperial types.  See how there was no scale factors at all, save for the initial hours to seconds conversion?  That's why the metric system is used for scientific purposes.  I'm just waiting for the introduction of base-10 timekeeping so I can finally get rid of that last relic (swatch beats were a good try but unfortunately it didn't really catch on).

    Imperial units are completely usable for everyday life.  But metric units are just as usable, and have the additional benefit of being more useful for science.  So the only reason to stick with the imperial system is that it's the one you're used to.  The force of habit is a powerful one.



  • @dtech said:

     I blame the lack of a proper English word for "particles/droplets falling out of the sky" for it.
    In dutch we have "neerslag" which means exactly that. It's usually used as a synonym for rain but can also be used for e.g. hail or snow. After Chernobyl the news even spoke of radioactive "neerslag" (radioactive particles falling out of the sky)

     

     There is one, if "precipitation" isn't good enough for you (from dictionary.com):

      sleet

    1. Precipitation consisting of generally transparent frozen or partially frozen raindrops.
    2. A mixture of rain and snow or hail.

     



  • @bjolling said:

    Only 14cm for a penis? Just 70 kilo for a dude?

    Must be made in Taiwan

    Agreed.  As a professional alcoholic, I can also tell you that in the US a shot is approx. 45mL, not 40mL. 



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Agreed.  As a professional alcoholic, I can also tell you that in the US a shot is approx. 45mL, not 40mL. 
     

    Wow, we must be getting ripped off, or you get really drunk. A "standard drink" is 30mL and it takes only 2 of those to put you at the limit to drive.

    And I am pushing 95kg, but that's not fat as I'm Darth Vader, apparently. (I am just on 200cm tall)

    The chart is a bit WTFy: it does say that 3L is a "2 liter bottle". Besides that, all the softdrink cans I've seen are 375mL (other than 250mL energy or 500mL "mother" energy drinks, or the big 440mL premix bourbon I have enjoyed in the past); most water bottles are 600mL or 1.5L. My fridge is 300L.  🙂



  • @Zemm said:

    most water bottles are 600mL or 1.5L

    I've seen 500mL and 1L bottles of water in the US.

     

    @Zemm said:

    Wow ... you get really drunk.
    @Zemm said:
    My fridge is 300L.

    I could drink your fridge of vodka.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    I could drink your fridge of vodka.
     

    I'm having a party on the weekend. I don't quite have 300L of vodka, but there are a few 1L bottles ready...



  • @Zemm said:

    . Besides that, all the softdrink cans I've seen are 375mL

    That's not the same for all metric-using countries. In Europe softdrinks (and beer bottles) are always 33 cL (330 mL, see how easy that was?)

    Wikipedia ftw!

    In North America, the standard can size is 12 U.S. fluid ounces (355 ml/12.5 imp fl oz). In India and most of Europe, standard cans are 330 ml (11.6 imp fl oz, 11.2 U.S. fl oz). In some European countries there is a second standard can size, 500 ml (17.6 imp fl oz, 16.9 U.S. fl oz), often used for beer
    (roughly equal in size to the non-standard American 16 fluid ounce
    "tall boy," also often used for beer). In Australia the standard can
    size is 375 ml (12.7 U.S. fl oz, 13.2 imp fl oz). South African
    standard cans are 340 ml (12.0 imp fl oz, 11.5 U.S. fl oz) although the
    industry is currently (September 2007) converting to the European 330
    ml standard and the promotional size is changing from 450 ml (15.8 imp
    fl oz, 15.2 U.S. fl oz) to 440 ml (15.5 imp fl oz, 14.9 U.S. fl oz).




  • @dtech said:

    @Zemm said:

    . Besides that, all the softdrink cans I've seen are 375mL

    That's not the same for all metric-using countries. In Europe softdrinks (and beer bottles) are always 33 cL (330 mL, see how easy that was?)

    Wikipedia ftw!

    In North America, the standard can size is 12 U.S. fluid ounces (355 ml/12.5 imp fl oz). In India and most of Europe, standard cans are 330 ml (11.6 imp fl oz, 11.2 U.S. fl oz). In some European countries there is a second standard can size, 500 ml (17.6 imp fl oz, 16.9 U.S. fl oz), often used for beer
    (roughly equal in size to the non-standard American 16 fluid ounce
    "tall boy," also often used for beer). In Australia the standard can
    size is 375 ml (12.7 U.S. fl oz, 13.2 imp fl oz). South African
    standard cans are 340 ml (12.0 imp fl oz, 11.5 U.S. fl oz) although the
    industry is currently (September 2007) converting to the European 330
    ml standard and the promotional size is changing from 450 ml (15.8 imp
    fl oz, 15.2 U.S. fl oz) to 440 ml (15.5 imp fl oz, 14.9 U.S. fl oz).


     

    Further proof that the xkcd chart is wrong! Even related to the US he is out by 5mL.



  • @Zemm said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    Agreed.  As a professional alcoholic, I can also tell you that in the US a shot is approx. 45mL, not 40mL. 
     

    Wow, we must be getting ripped off, or you get really drunk. A "standard drink" is 30mL

    25ml OR 35ml (or multiples thereof) in the UK.



  • @dtech said:

    ...

    That's not the same for all metric-using countries. In Europe softdrinks (and [b]beer bottles[/b]) are [b]always 33 cL[/b] (330 mL, see how easy that was?)

    Wikipedia ftw!

    ... 

     

    Untrue. Here in Austria we don't have these girl size 0.33L beer bottles, but 0.5L ones instead. Apart from that german Wikipedia names quite a couple of other different sizes for european countries. [url=http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bierflasche#Flaschengr.C3.B6.C3.9Fen]link[/url]



  • @dtech said:

    That's not the same for all metric-using countries. In Europe softdrinks (and beer bottles) are always 33 cL (330 mL, see how easy that was?)
    I've seen 2,5dl cans in automats in Italy a few times, but otherwise 3,3dl cans are the standard (and half litre for beer).



  • @Zemm said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    Agreed.  As a professional alcoholic, I can also tell you that in the US a shot is approx. 45mL, not 40mL. 
     

    Wow, we must be getting ripped off, or you get really drunk. A "standard drink" is 30mL and it takes only 2 of those to put you at the limit to drive.

    Well, are 'doubles' common in the US? They're pretty common here.

    That said, UK does have high alcohol prices :-@ 



  • @seriousJoker said:

    Untrue. Here in Austria we don't have these girl size 0.33L beer bottles, but 0.5L ones instead
     

    Beer bottles should be an Imperial PINT! (568 ml). That said in the UK a lot of bottled british ales and ciders come in 500ml bottles, and cans are usually 500ml I think. Foreign beers tend to be the smaller 330ml bottles.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.