I do find it shocking that 'kids today' really do not appreciate knowing a little bit of 'hex' and how that relates to 1's and 0's. Numbers like 384, 768 and ot

I do find it shocking that 'kids today' really do not appreciate knowing a little bit of 'hex' and how that relates to 1's and 0's. Numbers like 384, 768 and other common multiples should be understood as computationally significant. Same with numbers like 255, 16383 and so forth - people who work with code should mentally have an image of lots of '1's with these numbers, but they don't. One should not have to explain this stuff except to people, and, this article kind of sums that up, there are a lot of people out there that just were not brought up on the cusp of 8/16 bit computing!!! For me this has been the case with images in particular. Why have some Photoshop operative spend all day cropping images to (say) 2000 pixels square when you could have Imagemagick just do all of them to 2048 pixels square in a lot less time than it takes to have a cup of tea? Many, many micro-managers prefer the former option, thinking that the Photoshop operative will not have the ability to type '2048' on their Wacom tablet. Sure, those images are not going to be OpenGL rendered but they might be shown on a web page with OpenSeaDragon (what?) and those 8x8 pixel tiles in the JPEG will survive making the thumbnails better. What is not to like? Why go for the computing equivalent of 'imperial measurements'??? The odd thing about these scenarios is that these micro-manager types get hung up on things like image dimensions whereas programmers just let the computer do the work, to 'abstract out' those little details and let the code do it.