If you convert a nice, round number from one system to the other, you'll end up with a more precise, less nice number, which will give the impression that Celsius is harder to use.

In reality, people from metric countries just think in 5-degree increments: 25 is a beautiful day, 30 is hot. It doesn't feel any harder to read than Fahrenheit.

I wonder if there are people that moved to the U.S., switched to Fahrenheit and now find it more intuitive than Celsius. If one is easier than the other, I assume it still doesn't make up for the hurdle of learning a new system.

For example, following your partitioning logic, if the user registers as john.smith@example.com, we'd need to query only partition j.

2. Sort them to follow a repeating pattern of 4 distinct suits, e.g. ♥♦♣♠♥♦♣♠♥♦♣♠...

2. Cut the deck, putting the top part under the bottom part

3. (The deck will still have that pattern, but shifted by an unknown amount)

4. Counting out from the top, remove the following cards:

- 1st, 5th, 9th, 13th

- 2nd, 6th

- 3rd, 7th

Or: take 3, skip 1, take 3, skip 1, take 1, skip 3, take 1

Each of these groups will be of the same suit, so the deck should have the figgy distribution.

Let's say the numbers are targets on the line. Your distribution implies the range 1-9 is less dense with targets than the range 9-10. Doesn't that mean you're less than 90% likely to hit something between 1-9?

> You are NOT more likely to throw a dart that lands in 9+ just because you have magically introduced an infinitely tense series of irrationals in that range.

If we turn this around, by forbidding a bunch of values in the 1-9 range from being hit, then won't the probabilities get skewed towards the 9-10 range?

Too many cobras > bounty for slain cobras > people start breeding them for the bounty > law is revoked > people release their cobras > even more cobras around