> And that measurement they got was ultimately off, which is why the meter became (until its later redefinition),

> By contrast, the "foot", which is literally named after the device used to approximate it. The median human being has two of these.

It seems odd to criticize the metre for a lack of accuracy against historical basis when the modern definition is accurate to within 0.02% of its historical basis, and yet praise a unit that, if measured by its historical basis, would be off on its mean by around 20% and vary by 40-50% amongst the population.