Comment on Wikipedia is under attack — and how it can survive

• thingsiplay@beehaw.org ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Nice stats. I always wondered. I get the feeling that ~678 TB is little bit more than ~111 GB.

  source

  • SteevyT@beehaw.org ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Like, at least 7GB bigger.

    source

    • despoticruin@lemmy.zip ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      We need a drive that’s at least… Three times this size!

      source
• Powderhorn@beehaw.org ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Dear god, are we still using base 2 for file sizes?

  source

  • thingsiplay@beehaw.org ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    It doesn’t matter in this case, as long as it is documented (and it is by the unit).

    source

    • Powderhorn@beehaw.org ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ 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.

      source
  • Summzashi@lemmy.one ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    Nobody does that nerd

    source
  • phoenixz@lemmy.ca ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Yes, we all do

    source
  • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ 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 this

    source

    • Powderhorn@beehaw.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ 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.”

      source