Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

1 kilobyte is precisely 1000 bytes?

waspdev.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 430 posts

Re: 1 kilobyte is precisely 1000 bytes?

#311

Post by jibal »

dietr1ch wrote: post #232
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are managed by different standards organizations. One doesn't like the other encroaching on its turf. "kilo" has only one official meaning as a base-10 scalar.

I don't think of base 10 being meaningful in binary computers. Indexing 1k needs 10 bits regardless if you wanted 1000 or 1024, and the base 10 leaves some awkward holes. In my mind base 10 only became relevant when disk drive manufacturers came up with disks with "weird" disk sizes (maybe they needed to reserve some space for internals, or it's just that the disk platters didn't like powers of two) and realised that…

> I don't think of base 10 being meaningful in binary computers.

First, you implicitly assumed a decimal number base in your comment.

Second: Of course its meaningful. It's also relevant since humans use binary computers and numeric input and output in text is almost always in decimal.

Re: 1 kilobyte is precisely 1000 bytes?

#312

Post by zinekeller »

purplehat_ wrote: post #296
fc417fc802 wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think of base 10 being meaningful in binary computers. They communicate via the network, right? And telephony has always been in base 10 bits as opposed to base two eight bit bytes IIUC. So these two schemes have always been in tension. So at some point the Ki, Mi, etc prefixes were introduced along with b vs B suffixes and that solved the issue 3+ decades ago so why is this on the HN front page ?! A better…

To be fair, the octet as the byte has been dominant for decades. POSIX even has the definition “A byte is composed of a contiguous sequence of 8 bits.” I would wager many software engineers don't even know that a non-octet bytes were a thing, given that college CS curricula typically just teach a byte is 8 bits. I found some search results about Texas Instruments' digital signal processors using 16-bit bytes, and cam…

> Do you know of any other uses for bytes that are not 8 bits?

For "bytes" as the term-of-art itself? Probably not. For "codes" or "words"? 5 bits are the standard in Baudot transmission (in teletype though). 6- and 7-bit words were the standards of the day for very old computers (ASCII is in itself a 7-bit code), especially on DEC-produced ones (https://rabbit.eng.miami.edu/info/decchars.html).

Re: 1 kilobyte is precisely 1000 bytes?

#315

Post by highhedgehog »

Syzygies wrote: post #241
waffletower wrote: post #103

The author decidedly has expert syndrome -- they deny both the history and rational behind memory units nomenclature. Memory measurements evolved utilizing binary organizational patterns used in computing architectures. While a proud French pedant might agree with the decimal normalization of memory units discussed, it aligns more closely to the metric system, and it may have benefits for laypeople, it fails to accou…

He probably uses Phillips head screws.

wait, what is wrong with that?

Re: 1 kilobyte is precisely 1000 bytes?

#316

Post by PeterStuer »

waffletower wrote: post #103

The author decidedly has expert syndrome -- they deny both the history and rational behind memory units nomenclature. Memory measurements evolved utilizing binary organizational patterns used in computing architectures. While a proud French pedant might agree with the decimal normalization of memory units discussed, it aligns more closely to the metric system, and it may have benefits for laypeople, it fails to accou…

I do agree up to a point as I still need to double take when I see MiB, but that said, I also do agree keeping SI unit prefixes standardized has great advantages.

So the "sane" options would be either not using SI for digital, or, what was chosen, change the colloquial prefixes in the digital world. The former would have been easier in the short term.

Re: 1 kilobyte is precisely 1000 bytes?

#317

Post by assimpleaspossi »

philipswood wrote: post #257
waffletower wrote: post #103

The author decidedly has expert syndrome -- they deny both the history and rational behind memory units nomenclature. Memory measurements evolved utilizing binary organizational patterns used in computing architectures. While a proud French pedant might agree with the decimal normalization of memory units discussed, it aligns more closely to the metric system, and it may have benefits for laypeople, it fails to accou…

Yes, tomato's ARE actually a fruit. But really!? I'll keep calling it in nice round powers of two, thank you very much.

Yes. Tomatoes are a fruit because the science says so. That non-scientific people call it something else does not change facts.

Re: 1 kilobyte is precisely 1000 bytes?

#318

Post by AdamN »

kazinator wrote: post #229
f33d5173 wrote: post #210

A mile is exactly 1000 paces, or 4000 feet. You may disagree, but consider: the word mile come from latin for "one thousand". Therefore a mile must be 1000 of something, namely paces. I hope you find this argument convincing.

There is a "metric mile" which is 1500 m. This is something in the context of track and field athletics.

Same with a Metric ton (a "tonne") which is one thousand kilograms (pretty close to an imperial ton).

Re: 1 kilobyte is precisely 1000 bytes?

#319

Post by nickm12 »

nayuki wrote: post #38

> 1 kilobyte is precisely 1000 bytes Agreed. For the naysayers out there, consider these problems: * You have 1 "MB" of RAM on a 1 MHz system bus which can transfer 1 byte per clock cycle. How many seconds does it take to read the entire memory? * You have 128 "GB" of RAM and you have an empty 128 GB SSD. Can you successfully hibernate the computer system by storing all of RAM on the SSD? * My camera shoots 6000×4000…

Thank you. I had to scroll way down to find anyone defending using SI prefixes to mean what they mean everywhere else. A decade ago, I decided to alias "du" to "du --si" and not look back. Entire countries have switched from imperial to metric units. Switching to using base 10 for RAM is really just fine.

Re: 1 kilobyte is precisely 1000 bytes?

#320

Post by timschmidt »

moi2388 wrote: post #287
timschmidt wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes, and the made up words of kilo and kibi were given specific definitions by the people who made them up Good for them. People make up their own definitions for words all the time. Some of those people even try to get others to adopt their definition. Very few are ever successful. Because language is about communicating shared meaning. And there is a great deal of cultural inertia behind the kilo = 2^10 definitio…

That also makes your comment unreadable, no idea what the definition of any word in your comment means anymore. Can’t use a dictionary, those bastards try to get us to adopt their definitions.

This is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

Inability to communicate isn't what we observe because as I already stated, meaning is shared. Dictionaries are one way shared meaning can be developed, as are textbooks, software source codes, circuits, documentation, and any other artifact which links the observable with language. All of that being collectively labeled culture. The mass of which I analogized with inertia so as to avoid oversimplifications like yours.

My point is that one person's definition does not a culture, make. And that adoption of new word definitions is inherently a group cultural activity which requires time, effort, and the willingness of the group to participate. People must be convinced the change is an improvement on some axis. Dictation of a definition from on high is as likely to result in the word meaning the exact opposite in popular usage as not. Your comment seems to miss any understanding or acknowledgement that a language is a living thing, owned by the people who speak it, and useful for speaking about the things which matter most to them. That credible dictionaries generally don't accept words or definitions until widespread use can be demonstrated.

It seems like some of us really want human language to work like rule-based computer languages. Or think they already do. But all human languages come free with a human in the loop, not a rules engine.

Post reply on HN