Which is exactly what I just got done saying that I'm not saying. Reading comprehension, much?
To be entirely clear: All I was saying is that the reason we use radians in the first place (instead of, say, cycles) is that it fixes calculus. It has little to do with 2pi. It only relates to the comment it was said in reply to.
Yes, I’ve re-read your original post 4 times, and your intended meaning is quite confusing, because you’re talking about a different way of changing our notation than the link is, but without clearly stating that, and your notation change, which you criticize, is something of a non-sequitur in context of the parent comment and the article, as far as I can tell.
Thus, you seemed to be implying† that the new definition of pi results in messing up calculus. To clear things up: “We could measure angles in any arbitrary units we want, but using radians makes calculus work, and if we’re using radians, the circumference is 2 pi of them, which is why pi as a unit is not ideal, and newpi = 2*pi would be better. If we wanted we could have an angle of pi ‘diametrans’ in a complete circle instead, using our existing definition of pi ~ 3.14, but that would be stupid, because it would break all kinds of symmetries in calculus.”
†: This is apparently a misinterpretation though (mine and also aston’s, who wrote “a radian is a radian”), and you don’t actually mean to be implying that.