I am obsessed with the decimal system because it's used everywhere else. We count in decimal, most of the world population measures decimal (as opposed to '12 inches are one foot' crap) and because it's generally the easiest numeral system. Would it seem logical to you when 92 % would represent a full chance instead of 100 %?

(I am responding to the entire conversation Dwarf was quoting, as well as his own post, but I decided to trim the quote, as the rest of my post is big enough already)

See, the problem with that is that you're applying the rules for everything else to measures. Our mathematics are base-10, so base-10 is best, I'll give you. The problem is, measures aren't made to be logical, measures are made to be

*useful*. That's why I, personally, think Fahrenheit is better. It is more precise, and it provides precisely one useful function, namely, that a human being's health can be easily determined by whether their body temperature is above or below 100. Certainly, when dealing with precise scientific measures, Kelvin should be used in all cases, but for everyday use, Fahrenheit is just handier.

The other metric measures have similar problems. The meter is useful, but the decimeter is just meaningless, unlike the foot, which is a very handy measure. A lot of things out there are about a foot long. This is why I think it would solve a whole lot of problems if metric just added a new measurement. Call it a foot and define it as three decimeters (which is about .98 of an imperial foot). I do prefer metric (except, as I mentioned, in the case of temperature), but there's no reason not to add a few other constants that are just for usability. Measures are abstractions entirely for our benefit, so we should make sure they benefit us as much as possible.