The nature of bits is that of a base-2 system, so using power of 10s for counting them is only superficially human friendly - in practice it's human-unfriendly, because it flies in the face of how bits are used. All hardware and all software groups them by powers of 2, that's inherent to what bits are.
It may be more human friendly, but 1024^n is more programmer friendly, especially at the low level.
Everyone was happy with 1024^n convention in the 80s. The problem was HDD manufacturers got greedy and switched to 1000^n to make their drives sound like they had more storage. Thats what started the confusion.
> a byte isn’t 10bits
It could be. Historically, the number of bits per byte varied somewhat from machine to machine. Many standards used the term 'octets' to avoid ambiguity.