this post was submitted on 31 Jan 2025
426 points (96.5% liked)
TenForward: Where Every Vulcan Knows Your Name
4096 readers
773 users here now
/c/TenFoward: Your home-away-from-home for all things Star Trek!
Re-route power to the shields, emit a tachyon pulse through the deflector, and post all the nonsense you want. Within reason of course.
~ 1. No bigotry. This is a Star Trek community. Remember that diversity and coexistence are Star Trek values. Any post/comments that are racist, anti-LGBT, or generally "othering" of a group will result in removal/ban.
~ 2. Keep it civil. Disagreements will happen both on lore and preferences. That's okay! Just don't let it make you forget that the person you are talking to is also a person.
~ 3. Use spoiler tags. This applies to any episodes that have dropped within 3 months prior of your posting. After that it's free game.
~ 4. Keep it Trek related. This one is kind of a gimme but keep as on topic as possible.
~ 5. Keep posts to a limit. We all love Star Trek stuff but 3-4 posts in an hour is plenty enough.
~ 6. Try to not repost. Mistakes happen, we get it! But try to not repost anything from within the past 1-2 months.
~ 7. No General AI Art. Posts of simple AI art do not 'inspire jamaharon'
~ 8. No Political Upheaval. Political commentary is allowed, but please keep discussions civil. Read here for our community's expectations.
Fun will now commence.
Sister Communities:
Want your community to be added to the sidebar? Just ask one of our mods!
Honorary Badbitch:
@jawa21@startrek.website for realizing that the line used to be "want to be added to the sidebar?" and capitalized on it. Congratulations and welcome to the sidebar. Stamets is both ashamed and proud.
Creator Resources:
Looking for a Star Trek screencap? (TrekCore)
Looking for the right Star Trek typeface/font for your meme? (Thank you @kellyaster for putting this together!)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is up for debate, with computer prefixes now officially aligned with the standard SI prefixes.
You'll often see a GB meaning 1000MB, and a GiB (gibibyte) meaning 1024MB.
The ISQ (International System of Quantities) and IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission) refer to it that way, and so do many others.
But then again, some keep the more traditional 1024MB is a GB system, and maintain that the SI prefixes shouldn't count in computing because the base 2 1024 is close enough and it's the way we traditionally did it. I think Microsoft still does, for example.
In the past, that system was close enough. After all, an additional 24 bytes or kilobytes is a tiny amount. But now that we're getting into super huge data sizes, the gap is significant. 8 terabytes by the official scale is 8 trillion bytes, but by the "traditional" scale it's 8.8 trillion bytes, a pretty sizable difference!
In a way, 999 and 1023 are both correct. But 999 is technically the standard, and has been for a while.
Programmers like 1024, because that's how binary works when you keep doubling bits, and it's cleaner and more intuitive when you're working with low level code. Normies like 1000.
But they stole our beloved kB, MB, GB etc and we have to live with the stupid kiB, MiB etc.
Hum... I have some news for you.
Those words never actually meant what you think they meant, and we have to live with stuff like k(ki)B and M(ki)B. Nobody actually uses MiB or GiB.
I have no idea wtf you're trying to say here. "M(ki)B"?
"Nobody actually uses" the actual correct terms?
"Those words" - you didn't even clarify which words you're talking about.
Nobody uses memory sized in GiB, and while people use MiB in a few contexts, that's almost completely outdated by now too.
People use "millions of kibibytes" and "thousands of kibibytes" a lot. But thinking of that again, people also use "thousands of mibibytes" and "millions of mibibytes" too.
"Nobody" uses memory marketed as GiB maybe. But it IS sized in GiB. And why are you distinguishing between units here in this context anyway? What does "use" even mean here? Are you talking what people actually say, or physically use? Because they physically use all of these terms everyday.
People may not say the correct terms in everyday speech, but even today, regular, non computer people kinda think any word ending in some version of "byte" is more like a magic spell used to invoke the meaning they're intending.
People only use any of the "iB" words/abbreviations for conversations between computer enthusiasts. In general, they're still just now learning the difference between a bye and gigabyte. They know some sound bigger than others, but that's about all they know typically.
I'm not even sure when these words started tbh. I knew the difference between what they meant in different contexts, but I had literally never heard of any of the iBs until about 4 years ago or so, even being a nerd who used the one term in different contexts. It was such a relief to come across a word that meant what I was trying to say.
Either way, using the "ibi"s (there's gotta be a catchier word for the collective term in not thinking of) is anything but outdated. Being correct will never be outdated.
Take a look in the actual size of the memory you have around.
Those measurements still exist, they've just been renamed into the somewhat more awkward KiB, MiB, GiB, etc. I'm aware changing the terminology – while resolving the inconsistency with other things that get measured with SI-prefixes – creates issues, though.
Well, I say they've been renamed, it's actually a bit of a shit show.
Take a USB drive and plug it into a Windows PC and everything appears a different size compared to on Mac, because they define MB/GB/TB/etc differently to one another.
Linux of course depends on your distro and desktop environment, but virtually all of them pick either GB or GiB and actually mean what they say they mean.
Nowadays most programmers don't need to care about working with bits directly. And in general, it's much better if the system is aligned with literally every other measurement unit in meaning. I also think it's oftentimes deceiving exactly because it's so close to 1000 that you just behave like it is, untill it actually starts making a difference at larger scales.
I think that for most people in 99% of usecases it would be better for MB to actually mean mega, and for the 1% you can clarify with MiB that it's 1024.
I suppose if you're staying in a high level like JS, yeah, but if you're sitting there defining the width of your types with stuff like uint16_t or int32_t, you probably want to be using the former system.
how dare you go against the nagus!
It’s just Rom getting used to throwing his weight around, too polite to be any other.
It's because decimal is a terrible number system. If we had gone with dozenal numbers instead everything would be perfect. Instead we have a shitty counting system that leaves tons of headaches.
This is why my band is called 953 Mebibytes.
Great summarized, especially the "close enough" part. If you think about it this situation never would've happened if we would have based the majority of the computer designs on ternary instead of binary. https://zeta.one/kilobyte-is-1000-bytes/
So, to my limited knowledge, all digital storage is still based on the idea of a switch indicating a 0 or a 1. So, in terms of data storage, you're using those switches and base 2 is imposed.
You technically cannot build 1000MB of storage because your entire storage system is based 2. Being off by 24 isn't great, but manageable. However....
Let's call a KB 1000 bytes, and 1MB 1000 KB: we end up 1MB as 1,000,000 bytes, and 1GB as 1,000,000,000 bytes rather than 1,073,741,824 bytes, ~7.4% off! This error compounds as we go up in units, and quickly leaves one so far from physical hardware as to question one's sanity!
The real reason for the change is likely to be a little darker - 1.1TB sounds better than 1TB when trying to sell storage ("we give 10% more!").
You absolutely can build 1000MB storage, literally almost all SSDs to my knowledge use SI units for storage (meaning 1TB = 1000GB). E.g. here, first link I found https://www.crucial.com/ssd/t705/CT2000T705SSD5
under footnote 6. 1 GB = 1 billion bytes
Good point, I was thinking in terms of addressing being base 2 - (so when you call a memory address you're working in base 16 normally).
Also that rather affirms the idea - selling less while disguising it as more seems a more likely genesis.
I’m old and did not know this. Huh.
Still 1024 in my heart.
Well, well, aren't you polite.
yeah , hide behind politeness.
I am outraged by your comment and I believe you to be siding with the opressors that are harming us with doublespeak and lies, and ripping us off. I hope this time it doesn't get flagged by rule 2 , because I am disgusted by this way of thinking and bowing down.
There, no swear words.
Well ok, I'm sorry you feel that way.
I hope you realise that international standards organisations aren't setting standardised prefixes specifically to anger you.
Some of the comment that was deleted because it was too naughty addressed that, it's not that it's "made to anger me" it's to rip people off by misrepresenting the amount they are selling and started much more recently than people think.
I can see that argument.
However it's also true that most people who see the units assume it follows the same 1000-based system as literally everything else that uses those SI-prefixes does.
I somewhat doubt that all these international standards organisations are in the pockets of Western Digital and Seagate. It's far more likely that they think "kilo means 1000, not 1024. Because that's literally what kilo translates to." Of course, the end result is still that it benefits storage manufacturers, but I highly doubt that's what they set out to do.
Regardless of your opinion on the matter, getting that angry at people and dismissing them as bootlickers because they explain the GB vs GiB debate seems over-the-top to me.
Yeah, the 0.8 trillion bytes that the manufacturer is ripping off the customer with.
Not really. The average person sees 8TB and assumes it means 8000GB. And... well... now it does.
Only a very small amount of people (tech nerds) could think it actually means 8192GB, and that each of those GB was actually 1024MB, and so on, and the people who know that also probably won't be fooled by the misleading thing you say is happening (it isn't. They're calling a TB a TB, as they should be).
Personally I'm fine with kilo/mega/giga/tera meaning kilo/mega/giga/tera, as opposed to kilo/mega/giga/tera plus some extra. Nobody is stopping you from measuring things in GiB and getting the numbers you desire.
and how many people see a 1 tb hard drive and see that it only gives them 909GB and say "yeah, that's cool"?
If a HDD is a 1 TiB, it should be marketed as such. If it is 1TB, it should be marketed as such.
If you buy a 1TB HDD and it appears as 931GB in Windows, then that is expected behaviour, as Microsoft has chosen to incorrectly label GiB as GB. Take it to them. They're the multi-trillion dollar company to be angry at for falsely presenting numbers.
If they instead showed a GB number (rather than showing the GiB number but labelling it as GB) it would show the 1000GB as expected.
I know you're really going for a "you're a corporate bootlicker in the pockets of WD and Seagate", but it's really not sticking. I think you're just going out looking for an argument.