dimensionless

It doesn't mean anything to compare a constant to phi unless that constant is itself dimensionless.

Matter past the event horizon falls into the singularity pretty quickly, and that's a mere dimensionless point in space.

It's sort of dimensionless, and sort of not, because the seconds on either side of the division operator are sort of orthogonal (very vaguely like how joules per newton-metre is not dimensionless).

This problem is readily solved by using the correlation matrix instead, which is dimensionless by definition.

It's a dimensionless ratio of physical constants, and if its value changes, physics is different.

Bonus: since we're comparing gallon of water to gallon of caloric beverage, you get to use a dimensionless quantity!

Dimensionful quantities cannot be measured, only dimensionless ones can be measured: we can only measure pure numbers.

Therefore, the conversion between them is a dimensionless (= unitless) number, a constant.

You never write programs with meters and seconds, you choose scaled dimensionless quantities.

It isn't even a probability any more; it's just a dimensionless ratio.

If exposing units of measure to consumers, the units are simply not visible and all values will be treated as there underlying, dimensionless type.

I guess this doesn't work on dimensionless points, so the your comment is correct as far as mathematics are concerned.

Even dimensionless numbers are only marginally useful, like alpha; it may "exist" and manifest as our universe, but it's not especially predictive.

(Although I admit that "failure in time" is a stupid name for a dimensionless constant) Similarly you could invent a "galactic length" or however you'd like to call it.