Technology

59587 readers

5370 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Ukrainian drones now spray 4,000° F thermite streams right into Russian trenches (arstechnica.com)

submitted 2 months ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

250 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] megane_kun@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I guess? I just pulled that example out of my ass earlier, thinking well, hexadecimal is used heavily in computing, so maybe something with powers of 16 would do just fine.

At any rate, my point is that using a prefix system that is different and easily distinguishable from the metric SI prefixes would have been way better.

[–] michaelmrose@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

They could have easily used base 2 which is actually connected to how the hardware works and just called it something else

[–] megane_kun@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 months ago

I realized why I didn't think of base 2 in my previous reply. For one, hexadecimal (base 16) often used in really low-level programming, as a shorthand for working in base 2 because base 2 is unwieldy. Octal (base 8) was also used, but not so much nowadays. Furthermore, even when working in base 2, they're often grouped into four bits: a nibble. A nibble corresponds to one hexadecimal digit.

Now, I suppose that we're just going to use powers of two, not base-2, so maybe it'd help if we do a comparison. Below is a table that compares some powers of two, the binary prefixes, and the system I described earlier:

	Decimal value	Value with corresponding binary prefix	Hexadecimal Value	Value with prefixes based on powers of 16
2^0^	1	1	1	1
2^4^	16	16	10	16
2^8^	256	256	100	256
2^10^	1 024	1 Ki	400	1 024
2^12^	4 096	4 Ki	1000	4 096
2^16^	65 536	64 Ki	1 0000	1 myri
2^20^	1 048 576	1 Mi	10 0000	16 myri
2^24^	16 777 216	16 Mi	100 0000	256 myri
2^28^	268 435 456	256 Mi	1000 0000	4 096 myri
2^30^	1 073 741 824	1 Gi	4000 0000	16 384 myri
2^32^	4 294 967 296	4 Gi	1 0000 0000	1 dyri
2^36^	68 719 476 736	32 Gi	10 0000 0000	16 dyri
2^40^	1 099 511 627 776	1 Ti	100 0000 0000	256 dyri
2^44^	17 592 186 044 416	16 Ti	1000 0000 0000	4 096 dyri
2^48^	281 474 976 710 656	256 Ti	1 0000 0000 0000	1 tryri
2^50^	1 125 899 906 842 624	1 Pi	4 0000 0000 0000	4 tryri
2^52^	4 503 599 627 370 496	4 Pi	10 0000 0000 0000	16 tryri
2^56^	72 057 594 037 927 936	64 Pi	100 0000 0000 0000	256 tryri
2^60^	1 152 921 504 606 846 976	1 Ei	1000 0000 0000 0000	4 096 tryri
2^64^	18 446 744 073 709 551 616	16 Ei	1 0000 0000 0000 0000	1 tesri

Each row of the table (except for the rows for 2^10^ and 2^50^) would be requiring a new prefix if we're to be working with powers of 2 (four apart, and more if it'd be three apart instead). Meanwhile, using powers of 16 would require less prefixes, but would require larger numerals before changing over to the next prefix (a maximum of 16^4^ - 1 = 2^16^ - 1 = 65 535)

One thing that works to your argument's favor is the fact that 1024 = 2^10^. But I think that's what caused this entire MiB vs. MB confusion in the first place.

However, having said all that, I would have been happy with just using an entirely different set of prefixes, and kept the values based on 2^10^.