Given how this very short rant of a blog post is technically right that 10 is not a very integer-division-friendly base and how it uses imperial measures to illustrate the point—the pain point with imperial measures is not that they don't take base ten, the point is that it takes a plethora of multiplicators between commensurate units and that none of those multiplicators lines up with the way we say and write numbers. The obstacle from switching from colloquial "four in the afternoon" to "16:00" (not e.g. "14:00" which for a learner would be the obvious but wrong answer) is not to blame on the multiplicator, it's the fact that the multiplicator is not the base of our counting. Another obstacle in adding up seconds, minutes and hours and to say the results in terms of days, hours and so on is that several multiplicators—12, 60 and 24—are involved, none of which is a power or at least a multiple of the base that we use for expressing the results.
Of course none of this even touches about the great utility of a system where one liter equals a thousand cubic centimeters, with water weighing (OK, "massing") one kilogram (at standard conditions, imagine all the hedges), and where all mass measurements are based on the kilogram, all lengths on the meter and so on. In imperial, the horizontal distance from you to that tower is given in miles, yrds or feet depending on your habits and how far away you are; the height of the tower will most likely be given in feet, the vertical distance to a plane high in the sky curiously in feet, too, but the distance to the ISS in miles. In metric you do something similar in choosing between centimeters, meters, kilometers as you see fit, but crucially the digits remain the same, only the decimal point shifts somewhere else. This is what they wanted when they initially proposed the metric system near the end of the 18th century; SI is building upon this and greatly expands the system.
Given how this very short rant of a blog post is technically right that 10 is not a very integer-division-friendly base and how it uses imperial measures to illustrate the point—the pain point with imperial measures is not that they don't take base ten, the point is that it takes a plethora of multiplicators between commensurate units and that none of those multiplicators lines up with the way we say and write numbers. The obstacle from switching from colloquial "four in the afternoon" to "16:00" (not e.g. "14:00" which for a learner would be the obvious but wrong answer) is not to blame on the multiplicator, it's the fact that the multiplicator is not the base of our counting. Another obstacle in adding up seconds, minutes and hours and to say the results in terms of days, hours and so on is that several multiplicators—12, 60 and 24—are involved, none of which is a power or at least a multiple of the base that we use for expressing the results.
Of course none of this even touches about the great utility of a system where one liter equals a thousand cubic centimeters, with water weighing (OK, "massing") one kilogram (at standard conditions, imagine all the hedges), and where all mass measurements are based on the kilogram, all lengths on the meter and so on. In imperial, the horizontal distance from you to that tower is given in miles, yrds or feet depending on your habits and how far away you are; the height of the tower will most likely be given in feet, the vertical distance to a plane high in the sky curiously in feet, too, but the distance to the ISS in miles. In metric you do something similar in choosing between centimeters, meters, kilometers as you see fit, but crucially the digits remain the same, only the decimal point shifts somewhere else. This is what they wanted when they initially proposed the metric system near the end of the 18th century; SI is building upon this and greatly expands the system.