Non exhaustive
Percentages are expressed with ( 0 representing a complete unfufilment of a whole) and with ( 1 representing a complete fulfillment of a whole) The concept of a whole is problematic but the number 1 is a complete representation of a whole and is therefore less arbitrary than 100 Much of number based systems revolve around manipulations of a whole, a whole is a very concrete and easy to find concept, it is just all. Maybe stemming from the oneness of the self, much of language thought is based off of wholes. Not that this is the only and optimal way of structuring the mind This makes 1 less arbitrary than 100, 1 can also be easily used in mathemtical operations such as division without transformation
Different methods of combining a set of boolean values to form a singular boolean values are referred to by their full explanation and not by names of logic gates. Referring to such things as logic gates reinforces the idea that those operations are special and somehow fundamental
Multiples of measurement by 1000 found in the commonly reffered to metric system are not referred to with the language prefix as this causes the need to invent words unique to each natural language even if the 10 arabic symbols are shared between users of the metric system Instead x10^n notation is used to directly explain the relationship of "quantity unit^n" notation is used where 0 is the original e.g. "5 metres^3" not "5 killometres" unsure whether to still hold to multiples of 3 or not, needs to be determined before use
Breaks are made to improve upon concepts and also to reinforce the idea that reality is not held in common but is subjective and it is not always useful to approach common understandings especially when this rigidifies broken systems