I often find myself explaining the same things in real life and online, so I recently started writing technical blog posts.

This one is about why it was a mistake to call 1024 bytes a kilobyte. It’s about a 20min read so thank you very much in advance if you find the time to read it.

Feedback is very much welcome. Thank you.

  • wischi@programming.devOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    61
    ·
    11 months ago

    Did you read the post? The problem I have is redefining the kilo because of a mathematical fluke.

    You certainly can write a mass in base 60 and kg, there is nothing wrong about that, but calling 3600 gramm a “kilogram” because you think it’s convenient that 3600 (60^2) is “close to” 1000 so you just call it a kilogram, because that’s exactly what’s happening with binary and 1024.

    If you find the time you should read the post and if not at least the section “(Un)lucky coincidence”.

    • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      I started reading it, but the disdain towards measuring in base 2 turned me off. Ultimately though this is all nerd rage bait. I’m annoyed that kilobytes aren’t measured as 1024 anymore, but it’s also not a big deal because we still have standardized units in base 2. Those alternative units are also fun to say, which immediately removes any annoyance as soon as I say gibibyte. All I ask is that I’m not pedantically corrected if the discussion is about something else involving amounts of data.

      I do think there is a problem with marketing, because even the most know-nothing users are primed to know that a kilobyte is measured differently from a kilogram, so people feel a little screwed when their drive reads 931GiB instead of 1TB.

      • bigredgiraffe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Yeah I’m with you, I read most of it but I just don’t know where the disdain comes from. At most scales of infrastructure anymore you can use them interchangeably because the difference is immaterial in practical applications.

        Like if I am going to provision 2TB I don’t really care if it’s 2000 or 2048GB, I’ll be resizing it when it gets to 1800 either way, and if I needed to actually store 2TB I would create a 3TB volume, storage is cheap and my time calculating the difference is not.

        Wait until you learn about how different fields use different precision levels of pi.

        • wewbull
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          11 months ago

          It’s not 2000 Vs 2048. It’s 1,862 Vs 2048

          The GB get smaller too.