Not to mention that a Danish "billion" is not the same as a US "billion".
A Danish, Norwegian, Swedish ("biljon" ) billion is 10^12, a US billion is 10^9.
It's utterly confusing sometimes, and this is one of the fewer cases where US metric makes much more sense.
Ah, I like to think in steps of factors 10^3. Thousand, Million, Billion, Trillion. Very rarely do you get to numbers above this (non-science related), and when you do, scientific notation is more relatable.
I think I have almost never in my life (in Norway), seen "Billiard", "Trillion" or "Trilliard" used anywhere.
You're right. I should also have mentioned that it was more intuitive (for me), that {mono-, di-, tri-} was the 1000 factor prefix, as opposed to {mono-|{-ion,-ard}, di-|{-ion,-ard}, tri-|{-ion,-ard}}.
I'm not arguing expressibility. It's just different names. I just found the system my country uses (long scale) to be less intuitive than the one used by the US (short scale).
Just take a look at the comparison [1], and make up your own mind on what is intuitive, and what not. I'm not saying you or anyone is "wrong". I find it hard to see good reason for the long scale, but I'll entertain arguments.
There's nothing exact about it, it's just wrong and very very confusing.
A currency is a unit, a scale-factor. It can only be translated if you also translate, i.e. re-compute, the corresponding measure (the number itself).
I would classify this a major bug, the reasonable thing if they don't want to fix it (since fixing it requires reaching out to a time-dependent currency conversion table, it might be a non-desirable thing to do) they should just not translate that part at all. Then it becomes up to the reader to go back and look up the currency in question, instead of just thinking it's already been done.
