Although I typically avoid these by describing relative sizes, sometimes (particularly when describing building details) you just can't avoid it.
So, realizing it's not necessary, but how do you code straight quotes in html? I know that straight single quotes (representing feet), uses & quot;, but I can't figure out how to represent inches using a straight double quote.
Any old fashioned programmers recall the proper coding for that?
Here's a nice reference chart: https://dev.w3.org/html5/html-author/charref.
The double quot is & quot;
The single quot is & apos;
Other types are grave, acute and prime (1,2,3,4).
The double quot is & quot;
The single quot is & apos;
Thanks, as even if I saw an apos walking by, I'd never recognize it, as I think of both as being smart quotes, as I rarely ever use straight quotes any more, thus I also don't think of them as being apostrophes unless i'm literally writing them in a notebook for some ungodly reason.
@Switch Blayde:
In traditional printing, all quotation marks were curly.
Check your writing guides again, as those ONLY apply to actual quotes and not measurements (i.e. inches and feet). Otherwise, readers would get confused and complain of typos every time you reference a measurement in an article, story or newspaper article.
Thanks, as even if I saw an apos walking by, I'd never recognize it, as I think of both as being smart quotes, as I rarely ever use straight quotes any more, thus I also don't think of them as being apostrophes unless i'm literally writing them in a notebook for some ungodly reason.
Check the list I linked visually for the character you're searching for. And you probably (should) use the single straight quote more often than you think: you're, have at 'em, 'allo 'allo, it's, etc. etc.
Check your writing guides again, as those ONLY apply to actual quotes and not measurements (i.e. inches and feet). Otherwise, readers would get confused and complain of typos every time you reference a measurement in an article, story or newspaper article.
Exactly, the curly quotes are always used in pairs, which is not applicable for the quotes used to indicate feet and inches.
The apostrophe can be a single curly downward quote but unless your writing guide from a publisher specifically requires it you better use the single straight quote, i.e. & apos;. Why? Because a "smart" text editor will see the curly quote as the start of a pair and it will try to make the next single quote a closing quote thus creating a mess in the opening/closing quote order.
Check the list I linked visually for the character you're searching for. And you probably (should) use the single straight quote more often than you think: you're, have at 'em, 'allo 'allo, it's, etc. etc.
Sorry, but we disagree on this one. Check any published novel, and you'll note that they ALL use curly single quotes ("& rsquo;", in fact). That's a publishing standard, even with leading opening single quotes, NONE of them are straight.
Exactly, the curly quotes are always used in pairs, which is not applicable for the quotes used to indicate feet and inches.
I've NEVER seen that stated anywhere. Now, if you're talking about dialogue, it makes sense, but even then, it breaks down completely for multi-paragraph monologues, where the trailing quote is dropped to signify that they'd not finished speaking yet.
I'm not sure which software you're using, but I've never encountered any software that obsessive/controlling as that, and even if they did, I ignore enough wrong-heading spell-check reconditions to ignore that one too.
So they are bi-sexual?
Let's just say that their either punctually, literally or construction curious. ;)
I found this site on typography: https://practicaltypography.com/straight-and-curly-quotes.html
In traditional printing, all quotation marks were curly.
Compared to straight quotes, curly quotes are more legible on the page and match the other characters better. Therefore, straight quotes should never, ever appear in your documents.
in html 5 those old codes still work, but also the use of the ' and " in the text within a paragraph will display properly as well. However, I find it a lot safer to use the word inch or inches within the text because so many people today don't recognise the use of 4' 6" to mean 4 feet 6 inches because they've grown up without using those representations.
However, I find it a lot safer to use the word inch or inches within the text because so many people today don't recognise the use of 4' 6" to mean 4 feet 6 inches because they've grown up without using those representations.
I agree that it could cause confusion with international readers, but for a story solidly set in America, and when referencing something that's a recognized entity, like a 2x4 (i.e. a "2inch by 4inch used for framing during construction), I'd never detail it in words, as that seems like overkill.
That said, while I don't mind mm and cm dimensions referenced in European tales, I'm continually thrown by European temperatures, as I don't use them often enough to easily translate to Fahrenheit, so the references go right over my head.
something that's a recognized entity, like a 2x4 (i.e. a "2inch by 4inch used for framing during construction)
And much used in conjunction with smacking someone over the head in order to educate them ;-)
AJ
And much used in conjunction with smacking someone over the head in order to educate them ;-)
No, that's not a 2x4, it's a cluex4
Start with a simple clue stick. If that doesn't work you bring out the cluex4.
If the person is really dense, you might have to resort to a cluetron bomb. :)
And much used in conjunction with smacking someone over the head in order to educate them ;-)
Of course, as that's the most common literary usage of the term, as there aren't many novels that detail the cutting and measurements (reversing that) in novels about carpenters!
In a story, I wouldn't write "2x4" (and if you want to be anal about typography, note that 'x' should be a '×', or ×) or "2 inch by 4 inch". I'd write "two-by-four".
Note also that standard two-by-fours aren't actually 2"×4". They're 1.5"×3.5".
In a story, I wouldn't write "2x4" (and if you want to be anal about typography, note that 'x' should be a '×', or ×) or "2 inch by 4 inch". I'd write "two-by-four".
Ah, you got me there! I've always used "2x4" simply because I never stopped to consider the alternative, even knowing of the mathematical ×, simply because I've never associated the mathematical X usage in regards to construction, which is based entirely on geometry.
My bad, I'll have to watch that in the future!
@Dominions Son:
If the person is really dense, you might have to resort to a cluetron bomb. :)
Otherwise known as a 4x8, in reference to the American bracing frame of 4"x8", which has a much more emphatic impact on discussions!
Note also that standard two-by-fours aren't actually 2"×4". They're 1.5"×3.5".
depends on if you buy it dressed or undressed. the 2x4 refers to the undressed size. Undressed wood has rough surfaces while dressed wood has smooth surfaces due to having been planed on all four surfaces, which is why they come in under. Few places sell undressed wood to the general public now, but the size designations live on.
In the example you quote I'd use something like a: I grabbed a a foot length of 2 x 4 wood to hit him with, or I grabbed a a foot length of 2 x 4 inch wood to hit him with, or I grabbed a a foot length of 2 x 4 wood to hit him with. I'd never even consider writing: I grabbed a a foot length of two by four inch wood to hit him with.
Being set in the US explains why you use imperial measurements instead of metric, but most of your international readers won't recognise what the ' and " are supposed to mean. Also, I'm sure there are now a good percentage of US readers who wouldn't recognise the symbols either due to not encountering them at school or in life in the last couple of decades.
I grabbed a a foot length of 2 x 4 wood to hit him with
Or keeping with the general themes of the thread, possibly "I grabbed a length of a--a--a f--foot length of 2 x 4 to … :)
But being serious, I'll always write 2x4 as a single item (i.e. no spaces) whether I choose to employ the letter "x" or the Numerical multiplication symbol (i.e. not "*"). Again, it's a single item, not simply two random measurements unrelated to each other.
However, as you noted earlier, I have no problem with using '2"x4"' or "2x4 inch", using whichever symbol you wish to employ. But that's why I'd write it as a single entity, as it's not and "AND" sign if it's expressed as a term, instead it denoted as a specific entity, regardless of it's physical dimensions. But you'll notice in both of my examples, you can also designate the units while still keeping the reference to the item in question, so readers will (hopefully) recognize what you're referring to.
However, I often use the same nomenclature when referencing someone's physical heigh (or length), where the 'single unit' meaning wouldn't apply, so make of that what you will.
In the example you quote I'd use something like a: I grabbed a a foot length of 2 x 4 wood to hit him with, or I grabbed a a foot length of 2 x 4 inch wood to hit him with, or I grabbed a a foot length of 2 x 4 wood to hit him with. I'd never even consider writing: I grabbed a a foot length of two by four inch wood to hit him with.
I'd never even consider writing any of those things, because they're all awkward and unnatural phrasings. No one calls it "a foot length of 2×4 inch wood". It's a two-by-four. Or a 2×4, if you insist on refusing to spell out small numbers the way most style guides direct.
"I grabbed a foot-long two-by-four to hit him with."
"Wood" is implied; that's the default material of a two-by-four. "Inch" is both excessive precision and not even accurate. This is, evidently, a fight scene. No one is getting out their tape measure to find out what the lumber's actual dimensions are.
For that matter, "to hit him with" is probably redundant and unnecessary verbiage. The purpose of grabbing the two-by-four should be obvious from context.
Also, I'm sure there are now a good percentage of US readers who wouldn't recognise the symbols either due to not encountering them at school or in life in the last couple of decades.
You would be wrong. They're in common use in everyday life.
My driver's license designates my height as 6'·00".
I'm continually thrown by European temperatures,
Same here but the other way around. There's no logic in Fahrenheit. Well, there is but not what the average human understands, most humans think in equal steps on a scale. With Celsius every degree has the same unit size. 0 is where water freezes, 100 where it boils. You can't get it much easier. Convert between C and F: https://readerinfo.net/calculators#Temperature.
With Celsius every degree has the same unit size. 0 is where water freezes, 100 where it boils.
Celsius's scale had water boiling at 0 degrees and freezing at 100 degrees. Surely you mean Centigrade ;-)
AJ
Celsius's scale had water boiling at 0 degrees and freezing at 100 degrees. Surely you mean Centigrade ;-)
The Celsius scale was originally known as the 'centigrade scale'. The reversed scale (0 boiling, 100 freezing) is from before 1743. The current scale is measured in degrees, not centigrades. °C is a SI derived unit, derived from the SI unit Kelvin (K).
With Celsius every degree has the same unit size.
Sorry, but Fahrenheit degrees are all the same size as each other, they just aren't the same size as Celsius degrees.
I do see the possible appeal of the smaller unit size. We're not used to giving half degree precision in Celsius, but there could be cases where it feels different enough, especially for water temperatures. The farenheit zero is totally arbitrary and nonsensical though.
The triple point of water (at standard atmospheric pressure) in comparison is such a monumental figure for all life it seems a very natural reference point for everyday scale.
The farenheit zero is totally arbitrary and nonsensical though.
No argument there.
The triple point of water (at standard atmospheric pressure) in comparison is such a monumental figure for all life it seems a very natural reference point for everyday scale.
This is arguable.
This is arguable.
When ambient temperatures are going through Celsius zero twice a day you know the pavement on roads will be quickly disintegrating.
Also, if you do any gardening at all, zero means frosts, so you prepare for that.
There is nothing special about zero for either of those arguments.
If you set a scale where the freezing point of water is 15, both those statements would be true for 15 on the new scale.
Yes, you can memorize that the special number is whatever you set it to. But the point is, you have to know the freezing point of freshwater anyways. Like, at any time, and without thinking about it.
And the zero is such a big bold round number, assigning that to this ever important value is incredibly logical.
farenheit
How tall is Faren? Faren hight is probably close to 6 feet, or maybe two meters. If only one meter, Faren is only about 39 inches high.
How tall is Faren? Faren hight is probably close to 6 feet, or maybe two meters. If only one meter, Faren is only about 39 inches high.
Is Faren's height grater or lesser than gesund's height?
Sorry, but Fahrenheit degrees are all the same size as each other, they just aren't the same size as Celsius degrees.
You're right, I had it mixed up with something else. 1°F == 5/9°C. My point remains, for a human the freezing and boiling points are easy recognizable and settings the logical scale to 0 for freezing and 100 for boiling just makes sense. That logic is missing with Fahrenheit.
My point remains, for a human the freezing and boiling points are easy recognizable and settings the logical scale to 0 for freezing and 100 for boiling just makes sense. That logic is missing with Fahrenheit.
0 Celsius is only the freezing point for pure(distilled) water. Even fresh water on the surface has dissolved minerals that will shift the freezing point slightly. Few humans have any direct experience with truly pure water aside from purchased distilled water.
As for the boiling point, it varies not only with contaminants, but with atmospheric pressure. and there is nothing non-arbitrary about setting the boiling point of water to exactly 100.
0 Celsius is only the freezing point for pure(distilled) water. Even fresh water on the surface has dissolved minerals that will shift the freezing point slightly. Few humans have any direct experience with truly pure water aside from purchased distilled water.
As for the boiling point, it varies not only with contaminants, but with atmospheric pressure. and there is nothing non-arbitrary about setting the boiling point of water to exactly 100.
That's nitpicking. It was about human understanding what a temperature is in either C or F, not a scientific study.
To be precise for the definition: The freezing temperature in degrees Celsius is measured at 0 where "water" is water, not any any other contaminations (i.e. pure water), at a pressure of 1 atmosphere.
It was about human understanding what a temperature is in either C or F, not a scientific study.
You say it's about human understanding what a temperature is in either C or F, but then call it nitpicking to point out that human experience of the definitional temperature points won't quite line up with the C scale?
To be precise for the definition: The freezing temperature in degrees Celsius is measured at 0 where "water" is water, not any any other contaminations (i.e. pure water), at a pressure of 1 atmosphere.
Earlier you said:
The triple point of water (at standard atmospheric pressure) in comparison is such a monumental figure for all life it seems a very natural reference point for everyday scale.
The problem with this is that C is defined on the triple point of pure water and life can not exist in pure water. It is the "contamination" that makes life possible and that "contamination" shifts the triple point.
The problem with this is that C is defined on the triple point of pure water and life can not exist in pure water. It is the "contamination" that makes life possible and that "contamination" shifts the triple point.
Why stop there?
Since the water won't all instantly freeze at once, at what point do you say it is freezing? When freezing starts? When all of the water has frozen? Maybe halfway, but is that 50% by volume or size?
It was about human understanding what a temperature is in either C or F, not a scientific study.
You say it's about human understanding what a temperature is in either C or F, but then call it nitpicking to point out that human experience of the definitional temperature points won't quite line up with the C scale?
The initial problem was that many readers have a problem converting between Fahrenheit and Celsius. My point was that you don't need a scientific definition, just an understandable one. That is where a simple "With Celsius 0 is where water freezes and 100 is where it boils" are easy to understand for those only familiar with Fahrenheit. The "logic" the other way around is a lot less... logic.
Earlier you said:
The triple point of water (at standard atmospheric pressure) in comparison is such a monumental figure for all life it seems a very natural reference point for everyday scale.
That was LupusDei.
The problem with this is that C is defined on the triple point of pure water and life can not exist in pure water. It is the "contamination" that makes life possible and that "contamination" shifts the triple point.
I agree with that but it has nothing to do with the discussed conversion problem.
That is where a simple "With Celsius 0 is where water freezes and 100 is where it boils" are easy to understand for those only familiar with Fahrenheit. The "logic" the other way around is a lot less... logic.
You have apparently missed my point which is that there is no real "logic" to either.
I have not at any point argued that Fahrenheit is more logical or makes more sense. My argument from the beginning is that both are completely and totally arbitrary.
To the extent that one makes more sense to you it is entirely because that is the system you grew up with and are familiar with.
You have apparently missed my point which is that there is no real "logic" to either.
There's a case for starting with absolute zero, but what size gradations? 273.15 is about as arbitrary as you get get ;-)
AJ
There's a case for starting with absolute zero, but what size gradations? 273.15 is about as arbitrary as you get get ;-)
True, but the average human has no reference to what "absolute zero" is. 273.15 is not really arbitrary. The absolute 0 point was determined and set to 0 K, from that the Celsius degree unit size was used for the Kelvin scale, i.e. 1 K degree is the same 1 C degree. This resulted in 273.15 K where it's 0 °C.
Doesn't that imply the Centigrade scale is arbitrary?
If we knowingly encounter super-intelligent aliens who have FTL travel, it's very unlikely they'll be using any of our temperature scales.
AJ
Doesn't that imply the Centigrade scale is arbitrary?
Of course it's arbitrary, but it's repeatably arbitrary, unlike 'lowest temperature attainable with salt and ice mix' and 'body temperature'.
If we knowingly encounter super-intelligent aliens who have FTL travel, it's very unlikely they'll be using any of our temperature scales.
But, because 0 K is a theoretical construct not requiring any physical equipment to establish, and the triple point of pure dihydrogen(1) monoxide(16) is independent of environmental conditions (provided the fundamental physical constants remain unchanged) at 273.16 K, we can convey the Kelvin scale, and thus the Celsius scale. We can also convey the second and metre without reference to earthly items or conditions.
I remember reading one SF novel (dead-tree, it was near 50 years ago) where the hero was trying to get distances from the aliens, and claimed that the parsec was an earth-agnostic measure (it's not; it's defined in terms of Earth's orbit), and another more recently where someone was put outside the spaceship and cooled to -285 C (oops - especially as the ambient around the outer system, where it was set, is about 15 K, -260 C)
and claimed that the parsec was an earth-agnostic measure (it's not; it's defined in terms of Earth's orbit)
This site explains it in a way that most can understand: https://earthsky.org/space/what-is-a-parsec/.
Convert between C and F:
It isn't actually that bad. Celsius zero is 32F and nine Farenheit degrees equal five Celsius degrees. ETA: actually the 50 = 10 could be the easiest reference.
-4F = -20C°
14F = -10C°
32F = 0C°
41F = 5C°
50F = 10C°
68F = 20C°
77F = 25C°
86F = 30C°
95F = 35C°
It's just that "round" values in F produce fractions in C° that's making impression something nefarious is going on.
Not the most intuitive thing to do in your head, sure.
Not the most intuitive thing to do in your head, sure.
That's why I added the temperature conversions to the ReaderInfo Calculators. It helps people on both sides of the pond :)
-4F = -20C°
14F = -10C°
32F = 0C°
41F = 5C°
50F = 10C°
68F = 20C°
77F = 25C°
86F = 30C°
95F = 35C°
Nice graph but just to add
212F = 100C° boiling point of water
but better yet is
-40C° is also -40F that is negative forty degrees below zero