> I appreciate the caveat here as I very much do not and believe that the concept of kibibytes being distinct from kilobytes are a scam perpetuated by hard-driv

> I appreciate the caveat here as I very much do not and believe that the concept of kibibytes being distinct from kilobytes are a scam perpetuated by hard-drive and floppy disk manufacturers as a way to cut costs while still advertising the same storage space Except that you just said that "32768->32K" involves truncation. What is 32*1024? 32 KiB is exactly, no truncation involved, 32768. (BTW, kibibytes are distinct from kilobytes because 1024 is distinct from 1000. Similarly, 1048576 is distinct from 1000000.) > Truncation is a totally valid way of representing numbers [with lower precision] No. Rounding is. -- Once again. THEY, the authors of the post, use unit multipliers of 1024 in every other figure on the page. Except in this one particular figure where you claim they intentionally use 1000. I frankly don't care whether they define KB as 1000B or 1024B. Either way works. But they should, at the very least, be consistent within the space of a single blog post.