title: Why use rem instead px when it's the same anyway?
body: <p>Okay, first off, yes I have read many many articles (<a href="https://stackoverflow.com/questions/11799236/should-i-use-px-or-rem-value-units-in-my-css">Should I use px or rem value units in my CSS?</a>) and forums about this.</p>
  
  <p>I know that 1px is not a physical pixel but rather a CSS pixel, and <code>rem</code> is basically the same as <code>em</code>, but it is relative to the root element (hence the r in rem - root), rather than the parent element. <code>em</code> itself is equal to the size set in the document, and it is popular due to the scalability in comparison with pixel, which cannot be scaled.</p>
  
  <p>In all articles I read that everyone loves rem, and it should be used for <code>font-size</code> in modern browser, but also use <code>px</code> as a fall back for IE8 and lower. I see the main reason people use rem is so that the size scales better and is more "mobile friendly".
  Now suddenly I read articles saying that all modern browsers support <code>viewport</code>, so scalibilty is no longer that big of an issue.</p>
  
  <p>Then I read to properly convert rem to px and vice versa, we can use <code>html { font-size: 62.5%; }</code> which then turns 1rem to 10px.</p>
  
  <p>So after all this confusion, if scalibilty is no issue because of viewports and 1rem is converted to 10px via html 62.5%, plus I will use pixels as a fall back anyway, then why use rem in the first place and not just stick with pixel? I don't see any advantages of using <code>rem</code> anymore.</p>
  
  <p>Or did I miss some major advantage of <code>rem</code>?</p>