Not to defend Fahrenheit, it’s a nonsense scale, however: As with most subjective scales the entire scale can be split into good and not good. The top part is good and the bottom part is not good. The middle of the top part is seen as average good.
So around 75 degrees would be perfect, which is close enough for something as subjective as temperature.
This is why in things like movie or game reviews a 7/10 is seen as average. Like it’s good, in the good part, but right in the middle not anything special. A 5/10 or lower is seen as not good, not worth seeing, not worth your time etc. This works for reviews, grades, person attractiveness rating etc.
Not to defend Fahrenheit, it’s a nonsense scale, however: As with most subjective scales the entire scale can be split into good and not good. The top part is good and the bottom part is not good. The middle of the top part is seen as average good.
So around 75 degrees would be perfect, which is close enough for something as subjective as temperature.
This is why in things like movie or game reviews a 7/10 is seen as average. Like it’s good, in the good part, but right in the middle not anything special. A 5/10 or lower is seen as not good, not worth seeing, not worth your time etc. This works for reviews, grades, person attractiveness rating etc.
Yet, Temperature is not a nonlinear star-rating by IGN, is it?
Are you saying global warming is actually caused by the bias of IGN reviewers?
The flooding of Amsterdam was really epic, 10/10 IGN