On 1/10/25 15:40, e...@gmx.us wrote:
On 1/10/25 15:30, mick.crane wrote:
On 2025-01-10 14:39, John Hasler wrote:
Tomas writes:
Past experience shows that we'll live with this for a while (watch
the US still on their Imperial measures,
Pedanticism: The US is not and never has been on the Imper
On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 5:57 PM mick.crane wrote:
>
> On 2025-01-10 14:39, John Hasler wrote:
> > Tomas writes:
> >> Past experience shows that we'll live with this for a while (watch
> >> the US still on their Imperial measures,
> >
> > Pedanticism: The US is not and never has been on the Imperia
On 1/10/25 15:30, mick.crane wrote:
> On 2025-01-10 14:39, John Hasler wrote:
>> Tomas writes:
>>> Past experience shows that we'll live with this for a while (watch
>>> the US still on their Imperial measures,
>>
>> Pedanticism: The US is not and never has been on the Imperial system.
>> We use bo
On 2025-01-10 14:39, John Hasler wrote:
Tomas writes:
Past experience shows that we'll live with this for a while (watch
the US still on their Imperial measures,
Pedanticism: The US is not and never has been on the Imperial system.
We use both SI ("metric") and US Customary (the latter predate
Tomas writes:
> Past experience shows that we'll live with this for a while (watch
> the US still on their Imperial measures,
Pedanticism: The US is not and never has been on the Imperial system.
We use both SI ("metric") and US Customary (the latter predates
Imperial).
--
John Hasler
j...@sugar
I used to hold on dearly to the "1024-based" view, and it's only now
that I realize that I don't actually care about it any more. I think
what happened is that internally many things care about power-of-2 sizes
for technical reasons (there are very good reason why mass storage block
sizes are alwa
On 1/10/25 04:50, Dan Purgert wrote:
On Jan 09, 2025, Timothy M Butterworth wrote:
On Thu, Jan 9, 2025 at 6:45 PM Michael Stone wrote:
On Thu, Jan 09, 2025 at 09:47:11PM +0100, Nicolas George wrote:
For the people who need exact figures, on the other hand, binary units
are much more conven
Hi,
Timothy M Butterworth wrote:
> It takes 8 bits to make one byte, should we change that to 10 too
We once had the other way round. Four bits making one decimal digit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary-coded_decimal
The elders even had opinions whether Gray was to prefer over plain
bi
On Jan 09, 2025, Timothy M Butterworth wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 9, 2025 at 6:45 PM Michael Stone wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jan 09, 2025 at 09:47:11PM +0100, Nicolas George wrote:
> > >For the people who need exact figures, on the other hand, binary units
> > >are much more convenient, not just to measure
On Thu, Jan 09, 2025 at 06:44:30PM -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
[...]
> Baloney [...]
"Baloney" == "things I don't like"
(FWIW I'd prefer binaries in the computer context, but hey).
Human communication is messy. Both multipliers come from different
sources which were well established at the mom
On Thu 09 Jan 2025 at 02:29:37 (-0500), Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 7, 2025 at 10:07 AM Stefan Monnier
> wrote:
> >
> > > 8 TB is not that big. I have a external 18 TB drive. It is 18 TB in name
> > > only though! After fromating it with ext4 it only had 15TB of usuable
> > > space.
> >
>
On Tue 07 Jan 2025 at 21:00:39 (+0100), Nicolas George wrote:
> Kushal Kumaran (12025-01-07):
> > I point people to http://www.tarsnap.com/GB-why.html which is where I
> > was first enlightened.
>
> Mostly something anybody should learn in junior high school physics,
> freshman high-school at wors
On Fri 10 Jan 2025 at 02:46:13 (+0100), Urs Thuermann wrote:
> Michael Stone writes:
> > On Tue, Jan 07, 2025 at 02:59:47PM -0700, Charles Curley wrote:
> > >Mr. Tarsnap forgets something. The reason disks are addressed in powers
> > >of two has to do with mathematics. Every hard and floppy disk o
On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 02:46:13AM +0100, Urs Thuermann wrote:
For example, my computers had 5.12 kB,
65.356 kB, 16.777216 MB, 67.108864 MB, 268.435456 MB, 1.073741824 GB,
and 8.589934592 GB of RAM. Perfectly correct, but I prefer to say
they had 5 kiB, 64 kiB, 16 MiB, 64 MiB, 256 MiB, 1 GiB, an
Michael Stone writes:
> On Tue, Jan 07, 2025 at 02:59:47PM -0700, Charles Curley wrote:
> >Mr. Tarsnap forgets something. The reason disks are addressed in powers
> >of two has to do with mathematics. Every hard and floppy disk out there
> >has flaws. To get around that, data is divided into sect
On Thu, Jan 9, 2025 at 6:45 PM Michael Stone wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 09, 2025 at 09:47:11PM +0100, Nicolas George wrote:
> >For the people who need exact figures, on the other hand, binary units
> >are much more convenient, not just to measure the size of memory
> >modules: alignment requirements, m
I agree it is important, may be a precision on the more general idea is
helpful:
"Communication of numbers between ordinary people generally happens in base
10."
It turns out that the diversity of the notion of numerosity among *homo
sapiens* is way far richer than the base-10. See
https://wals.in
On Thu, Jan 9, 2025 at 6:45 PM Michael Stone wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 09, 2025 at 09:47:11PM +0100, Nicolas George wrote:
> >For the people who need exact figures, on the other hand, binary units
> >are much more convenient, not just to measure the size of memory
> >modules: alignment requirements,
On Thu, Jan 09, 2025 at 09:47:11PM +0100, Nicolas George wrote:
For the people who need exact figures, on the other hand, binary units
are much more convenient, not just to measure the size of memory
modules: alignment requirements, maximum sizes of files and devices,
size of stripes, they are al
Michael Stone (12025-01-08):
> For example...let's take the 18B drive discussed earlier. That's
> 18TB or 16TiB. Annoying, but ok. Now that's also 18000MB but 16763MiB. And
> it's 1800MB or 17166137MiB. So if you have a display in MB and you want
> to know the value in TB you move t
On Jan 09, 2025, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > For example...let's take the 18B drive discussed earlier. That's
> > 18TB or 16TiB. Annoying, but ok. Now that's also 18000MB but 16763MiB. And
> > it's 1800MB or 17166137MiB. So if you have a display in MB and you want
> > to know the valu
> For example...let's take the 18B drive discussed earlier. That's
> 18TB or 16TiB. Annoying, but ok. Now that's also 18000MB but 16763MiB. And
> it's 1800MB or 17166137MiB. So if you have a display in MB and you want
> to know the value in TB you move the decimal 6 places. But if y
On Tue, Jan 7, 2025 at 10:07 AM Stefan Monnier wrote:
>
> > 8 TB is not that big. I have a external 18 TB drive. It is 18 TB in name
> > only though! After fromating it with ext4 it only had 15TB of usuable
> > space.
>
> 18TB "on paper" is usually 18 * 1000^4 bytes, so if you convert this
> into
On Wed, Jan 08, 2025 at 09:04:09PM -0600, Nicholas Geovanis wrote:
> TB is about 10% larger. One of the worst crimes in computer history
> was ever talking about storage in powers of 2, I really wish it would
> just go away. It has properties that nobody wants and has been the
> sourc
On Tue, Jan 7, 2025, 1:27 PM Dan Purgert wrote:
>
> > TB is about 10% larger. One of the worst crimes in computer history
> > was ever talking about storage in powers of 2, I really wish it would
> > just go away. It has properties that nobody wants and has been the
> > source of endless confusio
On Tue, Jan 07, 2025 at 02:28:48PM -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > That would be for KB, but Tera is the third power of that. So it's about
> > three times 2.35%, if you throw away the higher order terms (we physicists
> > are cheap, like that ;-)
>
> I think you meant 4th power, but what's a fac
On 1/7/25 17:00, Charles Curley wrote:
On Tue, 07 Jan 2025 11:09:06 -0800
Kushal Kumaran wrote:
I point people to http://www.tarsnap.com/GB-why.html which is where I
was first enlightened.
Mr. Tarsnap forgets something. The reason disks are addressed in powers
of two has to do with mathematic
On Tue, Jan 07, 2025 at 02:59:47PM -0700, Charles Curley wrote:
Mr. Tarsnap forgets something. The reason disks are addressed in powers
of two has to do with mathematics. Every hard and floppy disk out there
has flaws. To get around that, data is divided into sectors, and
checksums calculated. Do
On Tue, 07 Jan 2025 11:09:06 -0800
Kushal Kumaran wrote:
> I point people to http://www.tarsnap.com/GB-why.html which is where I
> was first enlightened.
Mr. Tarsnap forgets something. The reason disks are addressed in powers
of two has to do with mathematics. Every hard and floppy disk out ther
Kushal Kumaran (12025-01-07):
> I point people to http://www.tarsnap.com/GB-why.html which is where I
> was first enlightened.
Mostly something anybody should learn in junior high school physics,
freshman high-school at worst.
Except for one point: “this is a special case”. Except they are wrong
> That would be for KB, but Tera is the third power of that. So it's about
> three times 2.35%, if you throw away the higher order terms (we physicists
> are cheap, like that ;-)
I think you meant 4th power, but what's a factor 1024 between friends.
Stefan
> Merchants insist on decimal only because their cash registers have no
> buttons for hex digits.
>
> 0xA exp 0xC is 0xE8d4A51000
> 0x2 exp 0x28 is0x100
> 0x100 / 0xE8d4A51000 = ~ 0x1.197D938
>
> So it's 0x19.8 per 0x100 loss for us hard working programmers when the
> scroo
On Tue, Jan 07 2025 at 11:05:11 AM, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 07, 2025 at 10:44:00AM -0500, Dan Purgert wrote:
>>On Jan 07, 2025, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>>> > 8 TB is not that big. I have a external 18 TB drive. It is 18 TB in name
>>> > only though! After fromating it with ext4 it only ha
On Jan 07, 2025, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 07, 2025 at 10:44:00AM -0500, Dan Purgert wrote:
> > On Jan 07, 2025, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > > > 8 TB is not that big. I have a external 18 TB drive. It is 18 TB in name
> > > > only though! After fromating it with ext4 it only had 15TB of usua
On 1/7/25 11:31, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 07, 2025 at 11:05:01AM -0500, e...@gmx.us wrote:
>> On 1/7/25 10:44, Dan Purgert wrote:
>>> On Jan 07, 2025, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> 8 TB is not that big. I have a external 18 TB drive. It is 18 TB in name
> only though! After fromating
Hi,
Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > 18TB "on paper" is usually 18 * 1000^4 bytes, so if you convert this
> > into "computer units" is ~16.37 * 1024^4 bytes.
Dan Purgert wrote:
> I thought the variance from TB -> TiB was 10%; or have
> I gotten it backwards?
Merchants insist on decimal only because the
On Tue, Jan 07, 2025 at 11:05:01AM -0500, e...@gmx.us wrote:
> On 1/7/25 10:44, Dan Purgert wrote:
> > On Jan 07, 2025, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> >>> 8 TB is not that big. I have a external 18 TB drive. It is 18 TB in name
> >>> only though! After fromating it with ext4 it only had 15TB of usuable
>
On Tue, Jan 07, 2025 at 11:05:11AM -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
TB is about 10% larger.
Hmm. Even talking about this is hard. The unit TiB is 1099511627776
bytes while the unit TB is 1 bytes. That is, when talking
about a drive, expressing it in TB is about a 10% larger number beca
On Tue, Jan 07, 2025 at 10:44:00AM -0500, Dan Purgert wrote:
On Jan 07, 2025, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> 8 TB is not that big. I have a external 18 TB drive. It is 18 TB in name
> only though! After fromating it with ext4 it only had 15TB of usuable
> space.
18TB "on paper" is usually 18 * 1000^4
On 1/7/25 10:44, Dan Purgert wrote:
> On Jan 07, 2025, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>>> 8 TB is not that big. I have a external 18 TB drive. It is 18 TB in name
>>> only though! After fromating it with ext4 it only had 15TB of usuable
>>> space.
>>
>> 18TB "on paper" is usually 18 * 1000^4 bytes, so if yo
On Jan 07, 2025, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > 8 TB is not that big. I have a external 18 TB drive. It is 18 TB in name
> > only though! After fromating it with ext4 it only had 15TB of usuable
> > space.
>
> 18TB "on paper" is usually 18 * 1000^4 bytes, so if you convert this
> into "computer units"
41 matches
Mail list logo
