First, that doesn't refer to the parallel naming schemes, it only criticizes use of "GB" as an acronym. Second, it's not specific enough -- the fact that two p

First, that doesn't refer to the parallel naming schemes, it only criticizes use of "GB" as an acronym. Second, it's not specific enough -- the fact that two parallel measurement schemes are in effect is the answer to the question he asks in his title. That deserves more than an offhand, incomplete reference.