Why not say 0.25%? No one knows obscure English language economics terms.
Also, bits per second is very familiar to many of us in the HN audience, but that is just because of our particular technical background. It is the same in other technical areas (such as finance).
I've always found it slightly silly that getting the rates and prices needed to judge the performance of the Fed, Treasury, and so on effectively requires use of a Bloomberg terminal (there are structural reasons why this is the case but the fed wields a big stick).
Even worse in the UK - DMO supposedly not competent in general but I have no first-hand experience.
The original article doesn't even use bps. It just says "In support of these goals, the Committee decided to raise the target range for the federal funds rate to 5-1/4 to 5-1/2 percent"
The title could have just said "Fed raises rate from 5.25 to 5.50". That'd contained a lot more information.
How many times have you seen a post when the submitted article was scorned for not using accurate terminologies?