this post was submitted on 27 Dec 2023
144 points (69.4% liked)

Technology

59329 readers
5017 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

(page 3) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] TigrisMorte@kbin.social 3 points 10 months ago (2 children)

It is only a mistake from a Human PoV. It is more efficient for the chip since 1000 bytes and 1024 bytes take up the same space. But Humans find anything not base 10 difficult.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] 56_@lemmy.ml 3 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Unlike many comments here, I enjoyed reading the article, especially the parts in the "I don’t want to use gibibyte!" chapter, where you explain that this (the pedantry) is important in technical and formal situations (such as documentation). Seeing some of the comments here, I think it would have helped to focus on this aspect a bit more.

I also liked the extra part explaining the reasoning for using the Nokia E60.

I don't quite agree with the recommendation to use base 10 SI units where neither KiB or kB would result in nice numbers. I don't see why base 10 should have an influence on computers, and I think it makes more sense to stick to a single unit, such as KiB.

The reasons I have this opinion are probably to do with:

  • My computer has shown me values using KiB, Gib, etc for years - I think it's a KDE default - so I'm already used to the concept of KiB being different from kB.
  • I dislike the concept of base 10 in general. I like the idea of using base 16 universally (because computers. Base 12 is also valid in a less computer-dominant society). I therefore also think 1024 is a silly number to use, and we should measure memory in multiples of 2^8 or 2^16...

p.s, I agree with other commenters that your comments starting with "Pretty obvious that you didn’t read the article." or similar are probably not helping your case... I understand that some comments here have been quite frustrating though.

[–] chitak166@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I dislike the concept of base 10 in general.

You're not human.

[–] Podo_Danderfluff@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

He's got 8 fingers on each hand. 🤣

[–] wischi@programming.dev 2 points 10 months ago

❤️ Thank you for taking the time to read it and thank you for your feedback, I really appreciate it.

[–] unreasonabro@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

i mean, you can't get to 1000 by doubling twos, so, no?

Reality doesn't care what you prefer my dude

[–] ElderWendigo@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)
  • Kilobyte is 2^10 bytes or about a thousand bytes within a few reasonably significant digits.
  • Megabyte is 2^20 bytes or about a thousand megabytes within a few reasonably significant digits.
  • Terabyte is 2^30 bytes or about a a thousand megabytes within a few reasonably significant digits.

The binary storage is always going to be a translation from a binary base to a decimal equivalent. So the shorthand terms used to refer to a specific and long integer number should comes as absolutely no surprise. And that's just it; they're just a shorthand, slang jargon that caught on because it made sense to anyone that was using it.

Your whole article just makes it sound like you don't actually understand the math, the way computers actually work, linguistics, or etymology very well. But you're not really here for feedback are you. The whole rant sounds like a reaction to a bad grade in a computer science 101 course.

[–] psud@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

But on packaging of a disc it's misleading when they say gigabytes but mean gibibytes. These are technical terms with specific meaning. Kilo— means a factor of 1000, not "1000 within a couple of sig figs"

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] FluffyPotato@lemm.ee 2 points 10 months ago

The only place where kilobyte is 1000 bytes has been Google and everywhere else it's 1024 so even if it's precise I don't see the advantage of changing usage. It would just cause more confusion at my work than make anything clearer.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›