Dear god, are we still using base 2 for file sizes?
Comment on Wikipedia is under attack — and how it can survive
e0qdk@reddthat.com 3 weeks agoIt doesn’t actually include all the media, and – I think – edit history. It does give you a decent offline copy of the articles with at least the thumbnails of images though.
Powderhorn@beehaw.org 3 weeks ago
thingsiplay@beehaw.org 3 weeks ago
It doesn’t matter in this case, as long as it is documented (and it is by the unit).
Powderhorn@beehaw.org 3 weeks ago
To be clear, I’m fine with RAM being base 2 – it’s rather difficult for it not to be given the structure – but for fixed storage, this is an old-school measurement that only gets worse with each order of magnitude.
phoenixz@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
Yes, we all do
Summzashi@lemmy.one 3 weeks ago
Nobody does that nerd
interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml 3 weeks ago
I don’t remember which is the stupid “1024 bytes in a kilobyte” one but
745,450,666,761,889 byte is 745 terabytes, that should be 745 TB and that 678 should be what TiB is for
And also that entire 677.98 is a useless value, there’s nothing that is “677” about thisPowderhorn@beehaw.org 3 weeks ago
It is if you just truncate! No one should do this, as I don’t recall the last time I saw such a textbook example of “rounding error” meaning “we fucked up while rounding.”
thingsiplay@beehaw.org 3 weeks ago
Nice stats. I always wondered. I get the feeling that ~678 TB is little bit more than ~111 GB.
SteevyT@beehaw.org 3 weeks ago
Like, at least 7GB bigger.
despoticruin@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
We need a drive that’s at least… Three times this size!