4 ms·

Ah yes, the "advertiser's gigabyte". Sort of like a "baker's dozen" but in reverse.

Night_Thastus 4y ago
They are honest in how many terabytes/gigabytes. But the computer doesn't report gigabytes (GB). It reports Gibibytes, GiB. Different units. Not saying it's not a dumb situation, just why it's happening.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  "ibi" is a retcon. It's not why.
  - Night_Thastus 4y ago
    The phrase is newer, sure, but what was measured hasn't changed. Computers always measured their memory base-2, manufacturers always labeled using base-10.* If software developers were: 1. Measuring using base-2 (what we would now call Kibi, Mebi, Gibi) 2. Reporting memory using base-10 prefixes (kilo, mega, giga) Then its those software developers, not advertisements/sales that were the problem. Those prefixes mean a very specific thing accross all fields. Using kilo to mean 1024 instead of 1000 is objectively wrong. No other field does that.
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      Some manufacturers used base 10. Others didn't. > objectively wrong So is assuming a "byte" has 8 bits. But outside of prescriptivist pedantry, gigabyte has long been used for mostly base two.
      - Night_Thastus 4y ago
        There is a vast difference between those things. The prefixes "kilo", "mega", and "giga" have well-defined meanings that apply to every other field. A kilometer is a 1000 meters, no more, no less. Same with milliliters. Same with everything else. No other field is coming up with their own meaning of "kilo". The meaning of the metric system is not up for debate. It is defined by the ISU. It is not a "maybe" or an "almost" or situational. It is a hard set of rules to make communication and measurement easier. What a "byte" is depends on the implementation. It's generally 8 bits but some systems are different. It's not a hard definition like the metric system. No standards organization came together to say a byte must always and only be 8 bits in every situation. You are comparing two completely different situations.
        Dylan16807 4y ago
        > No other field is coming up with their own meaning of "kilo". Neither is the computer field, really. "kilo" by itself isn't affected. > The meaning of the metric system is not up for debate. Nobody is saying it's metric, either. "metric kilobyte" is a thousand bytes. It's like having different tons. > What a "byte" is depends on the implementation. It's generally 8 bits but some systems are different. It's not a hard definition like the metric system. No standards organization came together to say a byte must always and only be 8 bits in every situation. If it depends on implementation, why are you insisting a gigabyte is exactly 8 billion bits? What if I said a "byte" could be 8.59 bits? > You are comparing two completely different situations. I don't see it that way, because I'm only making an argument about "gigabyte" as a single unit. (And kilobyte, megabyte, terabyte.) The vagueness of both applies.
        Night_Thastus 4y ago
        >Neither is the computer field, really. "kilo" by itself isn't affected. Yes, it is. When software measures in factors of 1024 but reports these using metric prefixes (kilo, mega, giga, or their shorthands KB, MB, GB), it's wrong. Imagine if a chemist had 1024 milliliters and reported that as a liter. People would be up in arms about it. >If it depends on implementation, why are you insisting a gigabyte is exactly 8 billion bits? I didn't. I never set bits. Bytes. A gigabyte is always 1 billion bytes, and a Kilobyte is always 1000 bytes. How many bits that is is implementation-dependent. >What if I said a "byte" could be 8.59 bits? ...there's no such thing as fractional bits. >I don't see it that way, because I'm only making an argument about "gigabyte" as a single unit. (And kilobyte, megabyte, terabyte.) The vagueness of both applies. There is vagueness in how many *bits*, but not how many bytes. That is a critical distinction. Again, the prefixes aren't up for debate. They always mean the same thing. Using them to mean factors of 1024 is just factually wrong.
        Dylan16807 4y ago
        > Imagine if a chemist had 1024 milliliters and reported that as a liter. People would be up in arms about it. Not if that method went back decades. I'll repeat the comparison to tons, since you didn't acknowledge it. Tons are different sizes in different places, and people manage. (And I'm including tonne because it's pronounced the same and has the symbol 't'.) > I didn't. I never set bits. Bytes. > A gigabyte is always 1 billion bytes, and a Kilobyte is always 1000 bytes. How many bits that is is implementation-dependent. So if I handed you a full CD and said it had 350 megabytes, because it has a million sets of 16 bits, you wouldn't object to that? Or if a drive manufacturer decided they're going to market based on 6 bit bytes, you wouldn't object to that? > ...there's no such thing as fractional bits. Sure there is. One printable ASCII character can store six and a half bits. Two of them can store thirteen bits. You can also entangle multiple bytes into a single storage unit if you want to. Base64 and base85 are useful comparisons here. If I declared that one character was a byte and it had 85 possible states, the math would work out fine.
hinkley 4y ago
Most of my data structures exist in powers of two memory space. All of my calculations of complexity are also represented in powers of two. If I double the data I'm dealing once, twice, ten times, I expect to have to increase my storage by the same amount, not by 103% for each interval.

They are honest in how many terabytes/gigabytes. But the computer doesn't report gigabytes (GB). It reports Gibibytes, GiB. Different units. Not saying it's not a dumb situation, just why it's happening.

Dylan16807 4y ago
"ibi" is a retcon. It's not why.
- Night_Thastus 4y ago
  The phrase is newer, sure, but what was measured hasn't changed. Computers always measured their memory base-2, manufacturers always labeled using base-10.* If software developers were: 1. Measuring using base-2 (what we would now call Kibi, Mebi, Gibi) 2. Reporting memory using base-10 prefixes (kilo, mega, giga) Then its those software developers, not advertisements/sales that were the problem. Those prefixes mean a very specific thing accross all fields. Using kilo to mean 1024 instead of 1000 is objectively wrong. No other field does that.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    Some manufacturers used base 10. Others didn't. > objectively wrong So is assuming a "byte" has 8 bits. But outside of prescriptivist pedantry, gigabyte has long been used for mostly base two.
    - Night_Thastus 4y ago
      There is a vast difference between those things. The prefixes "kilo", "mega", and "giga" have well-defined meanings that apply to every other field. A kilometer is a 1000 meters, no more, no less. Same with milliliters. Same with everything else. No other field is coming up with their own meaning of "kilo". The meaning of the metric system is not up for debate. It is defined by the ISU. It is not a "maybe" or an "almost" or situational. It is a hard set of rules to make communication and measurement easier. What a "byte" is depends on the implementation. It's generally 8 bits but some systems are different. It's not a hard definition like the metric system. No standards organization came together to say a byte must always and only be 8 bits in every situation. You are comparing two completely different situations.
      - Dylan16807 4y ago
        > No other field is coming up with their own meaning of "kilo". Neither is the computer field, really. "kilo" by itself isn't affected. > The meaning of the metric system is not up for debate. Nobody is saying it's metric, either. "metric kilobyte" is a thousand bytes. It's like having different tons. > What a "byte" is depends on the implementation. It's generally 8 bits but some systems are different. It's not a hard definition like the metric system. No standards organization came together to say a byte must always and only be 8 bits in every situation. If it depends on implementation, why are you insisting a gigabyte is exactly 8 billion bits? What if I said a "byte" could be 8.59 bits? > You are comparing two completely different situations. I don't see it that way, because I'm only making an argument about "gigabyte" as a single unit. (And kilobyte, megabyte, terabyte.) The vagueness of both applies.
        Night_Thastus 4y ago
        >Neither is the computer field, really. "kilo" by itself isn't affected. Yes, it is. When software measures in factors of 1024 but reports these using metric prefixes (kilo, mega, giga, or their shorthands KB, MB, GB), it's wrong. Imagine if a chemist had 1024 milliliters and reported that as a liter. People would be up in arms about it. >If it depends on implementation, why are you insisting a gigabyte is exactly 8 billion bits? I didn't. I never set bits. Bytes. A gigabyte is always 1 billion bytes, and a Kilobyte is always 1000 bytes. How many bits that is is implementation-dependent. >What if I said a "byte" could be 8.59 bits? ...there's no such thing as fractional bits. >I don't see it that way, because I'm only making an argument about "gigabyte" as a single unit. (And kilobyte, megabyte, terabyte.) The vagueness of both applies. There is vagueness in how many *bits*, but not how many bytes. That is a critical distinction. Again, the prefixes aren't up for debate. They always mean the same thing. Using them to mean factors of 1024 is just factually wrong.
        Dylan16807 4y ago
        > Imagine if a chemist had 1024 milliliters and reported that as a liter. People would be up in arms about it. Not if that method went back decades. I'll repeat the comparison to tons, since you didn't acknowledge it. Tons are different sizes in different places, and people manage. (And I'm including tonne because it's pronounced the same and has the symbol 't'.) > I didn't. I never set bits. Bytes. > A gigabyte is always 1 billion bytes, and a Kilobyte is always 1000 bytes. How many bits that is is implementation-dependent. So if I handed you a full CD and said it had 350 megabytes, because it has a million sets of 16 bits, you wouldn't object to that? Or if a drive manufacturer decided they're going to market based on 6 bit bytes, you wouldn't object to that? > ...there's no such thing as fractional bits. Sure there is. One printable ASCII character can store six and a half bits. Two of them can store thirteen bits. You can also entangle multiple bytes into a single storage unit if you want to. Base64 and base85 are useful comparisons here. If I declared that one character was a byte and it had 85 possible states, the math would work out fine.

hinkley 4y ago

Most of my data structures exist in powers of two memory space. All of my calculations of complexity are also represented in powers of two. If I double the data I'm dealing once, twice, ten times, I expect to have to increase my storage by the same amount, not by 103% for each interval.