Very cool, if true

I still think M+W was worth reading.

The objections are that a) it isn't new, b) that it isn't trignometry and c) that it isn't history.

M+W admit c) as this tablet doesn't show how the Babylonians used the table.
Since the Babylonians don't use angles, but describe the associated right angle triangle, this is not trig. but working this way you don't put the approximations into the table but get a division out which you can make as accurate as you need.
As far as I can see this exactness *is* new.
Wikipedia mentions a French paper by Proust (not that one) and suggest that it is what we ought to be reading.

I too had tables and calculators at school. I did have a slide rule but using them wasn't part of the syllabus (there existence was). But I also have a desk top hand-crank calculating machine.