For people confused, 1 bit = 100 sats. The idea is to make it more approachable to those coming from fiat currencies, as it will look more similar to them. In addition, 10 bits is a bit (ha) easier to say than 1000 sats. Also, now 1 BTC = 1M bits, which is kinda cool.
IMHO we are too early to consider either sats or bits as unit of account. And to be honest, if bitcoin succeeds in its mission: Sats will need the decimals.
purely culturally, satoshi sounds exotic, and unique - ok, maybe not to Japanese people, but most of the world isn't Japanese - whereas bit has all the appeal of wet cardboard.
Sats has already won the argument. We may have to go through another decade of Bit-posturing to confirm it, but you may as well get ahead of all that and get on a sat standard today.
"I want to buy coffee."
"Sure, that'll be 25,000 sats!"
"25,000 sats sounds like way too much for coffee."
"That's because it is! You should save those sats and maybe try again when the coffee is 10,000 sats."
bits some day, ... when instead of a bit referring to 100 sats (as some refer to bits as being today), we might we have "bits of sats" (i.e., instead of calling them millisats, it might be that a bit is 1/10th of a sat (0.1 sats), or maybe a bit is 1/100th of a sat (0.01 sats).
I get why bits are attractive, and I get all the arguments for it. But I feel like sats have a psychological advantage in that they feel distinctly different from fiat currencies and the appearance that they have. Maybe this is offputting to some people, but I like it.
Plus, a huge integer gives lots of fun numbers to play around with when sending boosts on Podcasting 2.0 stuff