Ah yes, this gets at an interesting side note, which is the difference between epistemic and aleatory uncertainty. QM uncertainty is aleatory, while issues of m

Ah yes, this gets at an interesting side note, which is the difference between epistemic and aleatory uncertainty. QM uncertainty is aleatory, while issues of measurement precision are epistemic. The distinction being that epistemic errors can be reduced with better tools and with an ideal measurement device are eliminated, whereas aleatory uncertainties are always present even with a perfect tool. Assuming QM's predictions are valid, we will never ever be able to to improve our measurement beyond the point where errors from the uncertainty principle dominate. Our current definition of the meter is pretty close to this limit, so personally I don't expect the meter is going to be redefined any time soon because we're already near the sort of scales where the idea of "distance" starts to get kind of fuzzy.