> CAD systems and automation make a lot of the issues moot. Only sort of. Threads are probably the easiest counter-example, because single point cutting is muc

> CAD systems and automation make a lot of the issues moot. Only sort of. Threads are probably the easiest counter-example, because single point cutting is much the same on CNC or manual lathe and while the CNC one can easily swap from 60 threads per inch to 5 per mm or whatever, cutting a 60° thread using a cutting tool that doesn't have a 60° point on it means another pass on every thread. Meanwhile the "imperial standard" is a loose collection of every thread ever and good luck to you. The big win is communication. With metric it's rare to be working in metre-newtons per farad-volt-second but with imperial often the conversion from energy to power involves going from pound-feet to horsepower (etc). Much easier to say or write "1234 joules over 18 seconds is 89.2 watts". It's one less conversion as well as less to say, and that matters when you're stacking many of them then trying to use units to verify that it makes sense. You also have the joy of "the hole for a 17/64ths Whitworth tap is 47.2 thou" or whatever other imperial nonsense machinists have to deal with. Meanwhile metric bunnies say "6mm tap therefore 5.1mm hole". Sure, you need a special drill bit in both cases, but honestly I'm just guessing at the imperial size and if I'm out by an order of magnitude I wouldn't know. But just guess... is 5.1 less than 6, yes or no?