Of course the right constant historically should have been 6.28... And not 3.14... Nobody's disputing that (or at least I'm not). The question is whether you

Of course the right constant historically should have been 6.28... And not 3.14... Nobody's disputing that (or at least I'm not). The question is whether you improve things by abandoning a universal standard with hundreds of years of support, momentum, and ginormous corpus of math/science literature all to save a 'simple' factor of two. My primary gripe with Tau is that its symbolic representation is not "backwards compatible". Ie, Hartl proposed to use yet another Greek letter which is widely used elsewhere in all sorts of formulae and constants, instead of something that would cause far less ambiguity. For example, a new symbol, as physicists did by introducing hbar instead of h (Planck constant in radians instead of cycles).