> You can certainly tell them that, and they may even find it easier to remember, but it won't actually be the reason that one convention is better than another

> You can certainly tell them that, and they may even find it easier to remember, but it won't actually be the reason that one convention is better than another. Indeed. But it was arguing against the logic of the parent post, which argued that it was a reason for one convention being better than the other. Not to be rude, but please read the parent post before responding to a response. It tends to make more sense. > Whether pi or Tau is preferable a priori is logically distinct from whether it makes sense to change conventions once one is established. Agreed. But that's not what I was arguing. I was arguing that we have to pay some kind of intellectual debt regardless. I could have used a different example, such as cases where it makes more sense to use pi than tau, and in such cases, we would be paying some intellectual debt. But please, please try to see how the idea applies beyond the initial example. Don't just take the argument at face value.