MPH is most correct in countries which use MPH; KPH is most correct in countries which use KPH; 23mm is most correct when discussing APSC lenses; 35mm is most correct when discussing full frame lenses.
That's not the best analogy; that would be like using millimeters vs inches for focal length. A closer one would be "wind chill factor". If you say that it is 20C, but the actual temperature is 25C (when wind makes it "feel" like 20C), then the next person can say, "Wow, if it is 20C, then it feels even colder with this wind". That is very similar to when someone fails to mention FF equivalence when they use millimeters of focal length to describe an angle of view. Focal lengths are NOT angles of view. Unfortunately, actual angles never became the common way to refer to angles of view, and that is partly why equivalence is invoked.
No confusion, only small errors when converting miles to kilometers or other way round.
Miles per hour, kilometers per hour or knots are all units of speed. In that case you are comparing apples to apples, as they say. There's no question which one is the most correct .
But You trying to mess things.
Miles, feet, inches, kilometers, meters, millimeters are units of length. Degrees or radians are units of angles. Using mms as unit of angle is confusing. It is like comparing apples to colors of a rainbow.
I like that "feel like 20Β°C" analogy. Just like with equivalent focal lengths. There is really people who believes that a 35mm lens magically turns to a 23mm lens if you set it infront of a APS-C sensor.
That is not his fault, not your fault, not mine, not Donald's one. It was the camera industry that invitented those "crop factors" 30 - 20 years ago when they started to produce small sensor cameras to consumer market. They thought the angles of views in degrees were too difficult to sell. Focal length was more common or like Donald says it