4 ms·
This makes sense when dealing with intrinsic units that also follow the base10 pattern. Bytes do not. Bytes are made up of 8 bits, and bits are powers of 2. Ne
by argvargc 6y ago
This makes sense when dealing with intrinsic units that also follow the base10 pattern.
Bytes do not. Bytes are made up of 8 bits, and bits are powers of 2. Neither of these facts have any relation to base10.
There is inevitable shoe-horning happening on either side of the argument.
If a new metric was to be introduced to provide for those who wish for "everything to be neat and tidy, excepting for the base unit", they should be the ones using a new term, while the rest of everyone continues using the incumbent one.
Overriding the commonly-accepted and widely-used term with a secondary meaning is a sub-optimum solution.
- pseudalopex 6y ago8 bits is just a convention. 6 and 9 bit bytes were common until the 1980s. Standards still say octet or specify 8 bit bytes. ISO and IEC standards defined a byte as 8 bits in the 1990s. But they also defined kilo and mega as powers of 10. Powers of 2 were never used exclusively.
- argvargc 6y agoPowers of 2 remain fundamental to bits regardless of how many bits are grouped together. I've only made the correct claim that the logical continuance the employment of powers of 2 into units of scale was sufficiently widespread as to be considered convention, something those who created the standards you cite also readily acknowledge.