On 1/10/25 04:50, Dan Purgert wrote:
On Jan 09, 2025, Timothy M Butterworth wrote:
On Thu, Jan 9, 2025 at 6:45 PM Michael Stone wrote:
On Thu, Jan 09, 2025 at 09:47:11PM +0100, Nicolas George wrote:
For the people who need exact figures, on the other hand, binary units
are much more conven
On Jan 09, 2025, Timothy M Butterworth wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 9, 2025 at 6:45 PM Michael Stone wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jan 09, 2025 at 09:47:11PM +0100, Nicolas George wrote:
> > >For the people who need exact figures, on the other hand, binary units
> > >are much more convenient, not just to measure
On Thu, Jan 09, 2025 at 06:44:30PM -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
[...]
> Baloney [...]
"Baloney" == "things I don't like"
(FWIW I'd prefer binaries in the computer context, but hey).
Human communication is messy. Both multipliers come from different
sources which were well established at the mom
On Thu 09 Jan 2025 at 02:29:37 (-0500), Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 7, 2025 at 10:07 AM Stefan Monnier
> wrote:
> >
> > > 8 TB is not that big. I have a external 18 TB drive. It is 18 TB in name
> > > only though! After fromating it with ext4 it only had 15TB of usuable
> > > space.
> >
>
On Thu, Jan 9, 2025 at 6:45 PM Michael Stone wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 09, 2025 at 09:47:11PM +0100, Nicolas George wrote:
> >For the people who need exact figures, on the other hand, binary units
> >are much more convenient, not just to measure the size of memory
> >modules: alignment requirements, m
I agree it is important, may be a precision on the more general idea is
helpful:
"Communication of numbers between ordinary people generally happens in base
10."
It turns out that the diversity of the notion of numerosity among *homo
sapiens* is way far richer than the base-10. See
https://wals.in
On Thu, Jan 9, 2025 at 6:45 PM Michael Stone wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 09, 2025 at 09:47:11PM +0100, Nicolas George wrote:
> >For the people who need exact figures, on the other hand, binary units
> >are much more convenient, not just to measure the size of memory
> >modules: alignment requirements,
On Thu, Jan 09, 2025 at 09:47:11PM +0100, Nicolas George wrote:
For the people who need exact figures, on the other hand, binary units
are much more convenient, not just to measure the size of memory
modules: alignment requirements, maximum sizes of files and devices,
size of stripes, they are al
Michael Stone (12025-01-08):
> For example...let's take the 18B drive discussed earlier. That's
> 18TB or 16TiB. Annoying, but ok. Now that's also 18000MB but 16763MiB. And
> it's 1800MB or 17166137MiB. So if you have a display in MB and you want
> to know the value in TB you move t
On Tue, Jan 7, 2025 at 10:07 AM Stefan Monnier wrote:
>
> > 8 TB is not that big. I have a external 18 TB drive. It is 18 TB in name
> > only though! After fromating it with ext4 it only had 15TB of usuable
> > space.
>
> 18TB "on paper" is usually 18 * 1000^4 bytes, so if you convert this
> into
On Wed, Jan 08, 2025 at 09:04:09PM -0600, Nicholas Geovanis wrote:
> TB is about 10% larger. One of the worst crimes in computer history
> was ever talking about storage in powers of 2, I really wish it would
> just go away. It has properties that nobody wants and has been the
> sourc
On Tue, Jan 7, 2025, 1:27 PM Dan Purgert wrote:
>
> > TB is about 10% larger. One of the worst crimes in computer history
> > was ever talking about storage in powers of 2, I really wish it would
> > just go away. It has properties that nobody wants and has been the
> > source of endless confusio
On Jan 07, 2025, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 07, 2025 at 10:44:00AM -0500, Dan Purgert wrote:
> > On Jan 07, 2025, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > > > 8 TB is not that big. I have a external 18 TB drive. It is 18 TB in name
> > > > only though! After fromating it with ext4 it only had 15TB of usua
On Tue, Jan 07, 2025 at 11:05:11AM -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
TB is about 10% larger.
Hmm. Even talking about this is hard. The unit TiB is 1099511627776
bytes while the unit TB is 1 bytes. That is, when talking
about a drive, expressing it in TB is about a 10% larger number beca
On Tue, Jan 07, 2025 at 10:44:00AM -0500, Dan Purgert wrote:
On Jan 07, 2025, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> 8 TB is not that big. I have a external 18 TB drive. It is 18 TB in name
> only though! After fromating it with ext4 it only had 15TB of usuable
> space.
18TB "on paper" is usually 18 * 1000^4
On Jan 07, 2025, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > 8 TB is not that big. I have a external 18 TB drive. It is 18 TB in name
> > only though! After fromating it with ext4 it only had 15TB of usuable
> > space.
>
> 18TB "on paper" is usually 18 * 1000^4 bytes, so if you convert this
> into "computer units"
16 matches
Mail list logo
