What are you even trying to say here? Yeah, in real-life use we use "close enough". I don't need to know that it's 1,546 metres to the nearest supermarket. 1.5 km is close enough.

But nobody is suggesting it because it's "so accurate". Any system can be accurate, depending on how many sig figs you use. The advantage of metric is on how easy it is to convert between different scales. Use millimetres, metres, or kilometres for the appropriate case, depending on the need you have for precision. And just move the decimal point if you decide you don't need as much precision...or need more. In archaic measurements, you can't do that. If you've got 342 feet and decide you actually only need to be accurate to the chain, you have to memorise the arbitrary number of 3 feet to a yard, and 22 yards to a chain, and divide 342 by those numbers, to arrive at 5.2 chains.

It's accurate when you need it to be and gets out of the way when you don't. And if you do need the accuracy, you have a unit that doesn't need fractions.

How is "accurate" an argument?? You can use any unit with any amount of decimal places. The argument is that it's regular. You learn the prefixes once and apply them to length, volume, weight, ...

The biggest argument for metric is that it's consistent. It takes 1 calories to heat 1k of water by 1 degree. State something similar in imperial units.

Most standard measuring tapes have 1/16th of an inch as the smallest fraction on the tape. 1mm is 1/32nd Which is one is "close enough"? Lol

Edit: 1/32, not 1/64