Sure, but caring about 5 (and 10) is not what the GP comment stressed (actually, quite the opposite). If we do care about 10, then 60 is indeed appealing, but a

Sure, but caring about 5 (and 10) is not what the GP comment stressed (actually, quite the opposite). If we do care about 10, then 60 is indeed appealing, but also an argument for base 10 too — which they argued against. "Highly composite" number being used as a base for a numbering system does not really strike me as non-arbitrary either. Choosing 60 and saying it makes more sense than, say, 2520 (which is also highly composite, but divisible by 1-10 too) is pretty arbitrary imho. Yes, my "criteria" is similarly arbitrary but focused on "10 does matter" ("I want to easily divide this into 2-10 groups"): both are too large to have individual names for each digit in a supposed number system with base 60 or 2520.