I think I was a little unclear above. Let me try this again:

The article tries to make a statement about the superiority of base-12 by pointing out that you can divide 12 by 2, 3 and 4 and get integers as result. Then it tries to show how bad base-10 is by dividing ONE (not ten) by 2, 3 and 4. And while that would be a decent argument had the author used ten (only 10 / 2 = 5, the others are still rationals), I think it's WTF worthy to use one instead here.

> Moreover, with base-12, we can use these three most common fractions without having to employ fractional notations. The numbers 6, 4, and 3 are all whole numbers. On the other hand, with base-10, we have to deal with unwieldy decimals, ½ = 0.5, ¼ = 0.25, and worst of all, the highly problematic ⅓ = 0.333333333333333333333.

WTF?

> At the point where 80% of the board room is men, you have to assume qualified women are being passed up at some point and it's not a meritocracy.

Good point. But then shouldn't the law require company boards to have at least 30% women and at least 30% men? Because a board with 80% women cannot be a meritocracy.