TLDR:

He is right for himself, but is IMO doing actual harm to others by pushing HIS limited situation as if it was a general woodworker's situation. And bending arguments to push that narrative - like having a crappy scale on a tape measure or claiming Imperial is base-12 which is clearly is not etc. etc.

------------------------

IMO that video well explains how someone raised on a base-2 (yes, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8 .. is a base-2) combined with a base-12 mid layer and a base 10 highest layer would justify promoting this to those who are sitting on the fence still.

I am sure that FOR HIM - an artisan of sorts - IT WORKS^{(TM)} so why change? And he is right FOR HIMSELF.

The thing is, assuming cabinetry-only and NO INTERACTION with outside world BOTH inches and centimeters work JUST FINE.

This is especially tue for a bespoke/artisan furniture maker where *dimensions are secondary* as there is expected to be free space around that and that standalone piece. Effectively, it is closer to painting pictures for a gallery than manufacturing of today. Ever heard a gallery asking for a specific picture size down to a millimeter (1/32") ? I did not. But I heard a lot of cases where furniture is first utilitarian and one wants it to fit exactly with even less than a mm tolerance allowed.

There, a base-10 system starts making a LOT more sense. It allows a precise and EASY capture of dimensions using the least amount of characters and in a unified manner. From the road builder to the drawer maker.

Definitely more sense that a base-2 system using fractional notation(!) intertwined with a base-12 using a base10(!) notation.

If inches were respresented in 0/1/2/3/4/5/6/7/8/9/A/B (i.e. base-12 positional notation) and base 12 was used also for fractions of inches so you would have 1.2" meaning 1+2/12 inches THEN all his arguments would be valid. But that is not how the Imperial system is structured, is it?

Ah, and do not get me started on the "base-3" yards and "base-1760?!?" mile.

So lets see, we have these units and notations in Imperial system:

=========================================================

base-2 with decimal-positional-inside-fractional(!) notation for smaller than an inch:

^{(1-127)/128} *2 > ^{(1-63)/64}" *2 > ^{(1-31)/32}" *2 > ^{(1-15)/16}" *2 > ^{(1-7)/8}" *2 > ^{(1-3)/4}" <*2> ^{1/2}"

base-10 with decimal(!) positional notation for inches:

(1-12)"

simple for feet:

(1-3)'

base-10 with decimal positional notation (huh ?!) for yards (*1760 == 2*2*2*2*2*5****11**(HUH?)):

(1-1759)y

base-10 with decimal positional notation for miles (finally, partial sanity returns):

(1-) miles

So 2 different(!) but-alternating systems of notation in just the length description but with (4!) different/possible multiplications between the data.

So, lets see, how to describe a certain /arbitrary/ length in various Imperial units:

*7 miles 1181 yards 1' 2*^{45/128}"

notation: decimal positional, then /1760 and decimal positional, then /3 and simple, then /12 and decimal positional, then decimal positional inside base-2 fractional

*13501 yards 1' 2*^{45/128}"

notation: decimal positional, then /3 and simple, then /12 and decimal positional, then decimal positional inside base-2 fractional

*486050*^{45/128}"

notation: decimal positional, then decimal positional inside base-2 fractional

=========================================================

See the problem? The more bigger /or smaller/ units are used, the LESS legible the notation gets as 3 different notations are seen in a single length note.

The real issue being that only the "full" notation - aka the most complex - results in a legible result.

And now lets do the same in the SI system:

=========================================================

base-10 positional notation:

... (1-999)um *1000 > (1-9)mm *10 > (1-9)cm *10 > (1-9)dm *10 > (1-999) m *1000 > (1+) km

Example from above:

*12 345 678,9 mm*

notation: decimal positional, base-10

*1 234 567,89 cm*

notation: decimal positional, base-10

*123 456,789 dm*

notation: decimal positional, base-10

*12 345,6789 m*

notation: decimal positional, base-10

*12,3456789 km*

notation: decimal positional, base-10

=========================================================

As can be seen from above, one can use even the km unit pretty efficiently to note <mm lenghts as the legibility is maintaned courtesy of the fractional positional system /that it is decimal is just an accident here/.

Sure, the example is an extreme. But it shows that while Imperial is generally "good enough" when used in a certain limited field - like cabinetry where one can stay within "inches" all the time - it just does not scale up nor down. So calling it "better" is just absurd.

A TRUE base-12 system COULD be better. But the last time this was actively used was like 500 years ago before positional notation came to the "West". Ah, and base-60 was cool too, just lately, like 5000 yrs ago in Babylon. Not Babylon 5, mind you!