>>418648324mm is the 36mm FF equivalent, they both have the same fov and dof compression on their respective sensor formats at equivalent apertures (apsc being just over a stop slower, f8 would look like f12.2, for example), and likewise with noise, apsc is just over a stop worse, given 2 sensors of otherwise equal performance. No one refers to their lenses by their fov, so trying to include that makes you look fucking stupid.
We normalise to the 135 format, because that's been the defacto standard since the war, before digital we'd do equivalence for medium format film.
And it should be taken at face value, because it is accurate at creating a standard whereby cameras of any size sensor\film can be directly compared. Even for some aberrations it remains relevant, like diffraction. (Although for others, like chromatic aberration then smaller sensors fare worse). And for resolution measurements of lenses, we've moved to the equivalent lw\ph instead of lp\mm, as including sensor size makes more sense for all users.
The only reason people get mad at equivalence or try to cast doubt, is because they're a poverty riddled crybaby insecure loser that can't cope with the fact his f1.8 lens doesn't gather as much light as my f1.8 lens, that his iso 1600 is much worse than my iso 1600.
