8 ms·

The logical standard are SI prefixes. Do you proprose that a milligram should become 1/1024th of a gram instead?

argvargc 6y ago
That would be completely inconsistent with what I've stated about why standards are desirable. So, we evidently agree on that. It is not logical to apply the same standard uniformly to everything regardless of its inherent characteristics. It's also not always the best course of action to blindly apply any rule without making exceptions. Bits and bytes already and inherently do not fit into a base10 paradigm, but a base2 paradigm. Making an exception for the application of scale measurements for those units makes sense and worked perfectly fine, for decades. Confusion was created by those adopting a different standard, for dubious reasons. The issue of consumer ignorance, which was largely created by storage manufacturers and later now embedded by Apple could have been easily and simply resolved with a tiny bit of education. Indeed, at least through the 80's it often was. It's actually not that hard for people to remember one four digit number to multiply or divide by, after they've had an explanation of why that's important and make sense. Building this into the UI along with explanation is also not difficult. Exactly the same as many other important things that are prone to being misunderstood are explained. Everyone would be better off for it.
- stkdump 6y ago
  > an explanation of why that's important There is just none
  - argvargc 6y ago
    In computer memory, why is 1 Kilobyte equal to 1,024 bytes and not 1,000 bytes? In the standard metric system, Kilo / K = 1,000 units of something, Mega / M = 1,000,000 units of something (and down in scale also by dividing by 1,000). This applies for anything where the standard singular unit is 1, and assumes it can also be multiplied by, or divided into 1,000 pieces. For example: 1 gram equals 1,000 milligrams. A computer however, does not have one base unit, but two: the bit and the byte. Neither are usefully divisible by 1,000. Conversely, multiplying the byte by 1,000 hides aspects of its structure that are essential to consider when building and programming a computer system. Considering that the metric system is about notating scale, and that there are issues in both directions of scale when applying the metric system to computers, it made sense to modify it slightly when doing so. Luckily, there is a number very close to 1,000 that does usefully represent the inconvenient internal structure of a bit and a byte, at least at larger scales. That number is 1,024. Early computer scientists decided that for computers, Kilo / K = 1,024 bytes. It followed that Mega / M was 1,024 x 1,024 = 1,048,576 bytes, and so on. (1 GB = 1,024 x 1,024 x 1,024 = 1,073,741,824 bytes, or close to 1 billion bytes). This "1,024 rule" for the computer application of metric system, matches the physical structure of computer memory exactly - and crucially, the parts of a computer that physically access memory - making it straightforward for programmers and hardware designers to work with and talk about. --- And, from an alternate 1990's addendum to the previous: It also means that when you see a Hard Drive advertised with a size of 240 MB, you can be sure that you are in fact getting 240 x 1,048,576 bytes of storage, or 251,658,240 bytes (well over 251 million bytes). That 251 million is, on appearance, quite a bit "more" than 240 MB is one of the bonuses of the "1,024 rule" for the computer metric system that can impact you directly. You're welcome!
    - stkdump 6y ago
      I don't see any 'problem' caused by the fact that we nowadays standardized on SI prefixes. In the olden days, you would get inaccuracies like the so called 1.44 'MB' floppy disk (which wasn't very floppy, either) by the insistence on the illogical dual meaning of the prefixes.
      - argvargc 6y ago
        Exactly. It was, and is illogical to have a dual meaning. Sticking with the first, widely-proliferated meaning we already had, which existed because of its usefulness, along with its direct honouring of the structure of what it was describing, is IMO the superior choice. This versus cementing the source of the confusion - the secondary meaning - even further by introducing it not only as an additional standard, but also as the de facto, nullifying years of text and understanding and rendering it inaccurate. To me, that was, and is absolute madness.
        stkdump 6y ago
        There is no use in this obfuscation.

That would be completely inconsistent with what I've stated about why standards are desirable. So, we evidently agree on that. It is not logical to apply the same standard uniformly to everything regardless of its inherent characteristics. It's also not always the best course of action to blindly apply any rule without making exceptions. Bits and bytes already and inherently do not fit into a base10 paradigm, but a base2 paradigm. Making an exception for the application of scale measurements for those units makes sense and worked perfectly fine, for decades. Confusion was created by those adopting a different standard, for dubious reasons. The issue of consumer ignorance, which was largely created by storage manufacturers and later now embedded by Apple could have been easily and simply resolved with a tiny bit of education. Indeed, at least through the 80's it often was. It's actually not that hard for people to remember one four digit number to multiply or divide by, after they've had an explanation of why that's important and make sense. Building this into the UI along with explanation is also not difficult. Exactly the same as many other important things that are prone to being misunderstood are explained. Everyone would be better off for it.

stkdump 6y ago
> an explanation of why that's important There is just none
- argvargc 6y ago
  In computer memory, why is 1 Kilobyte equal to 1,024 bytes and not 1,000 bytes? In the standard metric system, Kilo / K = 1,000 units of something, Mega / M = 1,000,000 units of something (and down in scale also by dividing by 1,000). This applies for anything where the standard singular unit is 1, and assumes it can also be multiplied by, or divided into 1,000 pieces. For example: 1 gram equals 1,000 milligrams. A computer however, does not have one base unit, but two: the bit and the byte. Neither are usefully divisible by 1,000. Conversely, multiplying the byte by 1,000 hides aspects of its structure that are essential to consider when building and programming a computer system. Considering that the metric system is about notating scale, and that there are issues in both directions of scale when applying the metric system to computers, it made sense to modify it slightly when doing so. Luckily, there is a number very close to 1,000 that does usefully represent the inconvenient internal structure of a bit and a byte, at least at larger scales. That number is 1,024. Early computer scientists decided that for computers, Kilo / K = 1,024 bytes. It followed that Mega / M was 1,024 x 1,024 = 1,048,576 bytes, and so on. (1 GB = 1,024 x 1,024 x 1,024 = 1,073,741,824 bytes, or close to 1 billion bytes). This "1,024 rule" for the computer application of metric system, matches the physical structure of computer memory exactly - and crucially, the parts of a computer that physically access memory - making it straightforward for programmers and hardware designers to work with and talk about. --- And, from an alternate 1990's addendum to the previous: It also means that when you see a Hard Drive advertised with a size of 240 MB, you can be sure that you are in fact getting 240 x 1,048,576 bytes of storage, or 251,658,240 bytes (well over 251 million bytes). That 251 million is, on appearance, quite a bit "more" than 240 MB is one of the bonuses of the "1,024 rule" for the computer metric system that can impact you directly. You're welcome!
  - stkdump 6y ago
    I don't see any 'problem' caused by the fact that we nowadays standardized on SI prefixes. In the olden days, you would get inaccuracies like the so called 1.44 'MB' floppy disk (which wasn't very floppy, either) by the insistence on the illogical dual meaning of the prefixes.
    - argvargc 6y ago
      Exactly. It was, and is illogical to have a dual meaning. Sticking with the first, widely-proliferated meaning we already had, which existed because of its usefulness, along with its direct honouring of the structure of what it was describing, is IMO the superior choice. This versus cementing the source of the confusion - the secondary meaning - even further by introducing it not only as an additional standard, but also as the de facto, nullifying years of text and understanding and rendering it inaccurate. To me, that was, and is absolute madness.
      - stkdump 6y ago
        There is no use in this obfuscation.