Great, another metric-supremacist jumping up out of nowhere to bash non-metric units. Listen, the metric system had some great ideas - using only one metric fo

Great, another metric-supremacist jumping up out of nowhere to bash non-metric units. Listen, the metric system had some great ideas - using only one metric for all spatial divisions is one - but you got ahead of yourself, got half-assed, and have this insane obsession with a useless scaling factor (10). The meter isn't bad; it's basically a yard. But then you went crazy and tried to related all of your measurements to the Earth, which is just this unnecessary obsession that has no actual intrinsic value. Why is it important that a unit volume of water have a unit mass of weight? Why is it important that there be an even 100 degrees between the freezing and boiling points of water? It's not! You could have chosen any arbitrary weight and temperature baselines and it would have been basically the same. And then you did a shit job of it! The density of water is 0.997 g/ml! Measuring the Earth to determine the meter was silly all along, and you ended up redefining the triple point of water to 0.01 degree Celsius because it was too hard to fix the discrepancy by then! You started off with these supposedly noble goals, and then got half-assed because it was too hard to correct your earlier mistakes. Sound familiar? Meanwhile, you've abandoned the archaic units of measure's reliance on powers of two to fetishise powers of ten! (On a computer programming forum, how can you defend this?) Common units are littered in powers of two because factors of two and four make for really convenient subdivisions. Four cups in a quart, four quarts in a gallon, those are very useful subdivisions. Eight furlongs in a mile, sixteen ounces in a pound. Binary divisions produce very useful natural units at human scales. Decimal divisions let an idiot multiply one number by a very large powers of ten easily. Which do you think is really more important?