The problem is not a micro-optimization such as using base 10 or base 12. The problem is that we can't all agree on a common measurement system and the biggest economy in the world stubbornly keeps using an archaic and sub-optimal system that it's actively pushing onto the rest of us.

For example, instead of having screen details in sqcm (and aspect ratios), we have inches (and maaaaybe aspect rations mentioned somewhere). This is being pushed <<everywhere>> around the world because of freaking device screens.

It's like a comment about I saw about nature: if we see a rodent eating a bug, that's a bit gross but it's ok (the rodent being a mammal and therefore closer to us, so "superior"), but if we saw a bug eating a rodent, we're appalled. Right now the US imperial measurement system seems like that bug trying to eat the rodent (metric/decimal system).

Historically, metric was the thing being pushed.

The "pushing" isn't the problem.

The nature (good/bad) of the thing being pushed is. The imperial system is objectively inferior since the metric system has been created.

It's inferior for some purposes. It's still ideally suited to the purposes for which it naturally evolved in the first place.

Even about that, I'm not sure. The metric system is damn good even for day to day measurements.

My favorite theory explaining the emergence of base- 12 and 60 is counting on your fingers: count up to the 12 phalanges on one hand (using your thumb), then start over and keep track of dozens with the 5 fingers on the other hand.

My parents grew up with the "old money", and my father in particular always said that it was easier to work with because everything divided by 2,3 or 4 easily. His opinion was always that the new money was introduced to make computerisation easier. In other words, the benefit wasn't for humans (who prefer working in 12's), but for computers.

That does not make sense to me, since computers "native" numbers are not binary and the layer on top would not care one bit if it converts the binary representation to whatever base. Not to mention that the wide-spread use of the decimal system among humans happened long before computers where even dreamed of. So those things point to the decimal system adoption having been made for humans and not for computers.

Countries other than the UK had done that step (for currency) centuries before Britain too.

Here is some background: "How Britain converted to decimal currency" -- https://www.bbc.com/news/business-12346083

Also,

> the benefit wasn't for humans (who prefer working in 12's)

I'm not sure what people you know, I don't know anyone who would prefer base 12. That seems like a very bold claim to me - I think I would like to see some evidence for it.

It's popular for time. See you in an an hour rather than in 0.041666 days.

That's a bad example, because you use exactly one hour.

If you divide the day in 10, let's call it decile, you would say see you in a decile instead of 2.43 hours.

As a side effect, 2.43h is actually 2h and less than 30 minutes and not 2h and 43 minutes (unintuitive), while 0.41 decile would probably be 41 centile, so conversion would be easier.

I have no evidence for any of it except the anecdotal mumblings of an old man ;) Though a lot of different societies came up with 12-based systems, so there might be something to it.

It is clear that illiterate people could work in "old money" fine. I suspect this is like the darts players who can do the mental arithmetic involved in a darts match fine, but would consider themselves "bad at maths". It's a learning cliff, but like any learning cliff, it no longer matters once you've climbed it.

Humans have 10 fingers and 10 toes. We almost certainly prefer working with 10s for that reason, all things being equal.

Many ancient human cultures had base 12 and base 60 number systems because there are 12 digit segments that can be indexed by pointing your thumb — 3 segments/digit x 4 fingers

> Of course then it might not be called "cent" any longer.

Would probably be called a sextant, which would raise a few eyebrows in British politics if history is to go by.