wischi

joined 1 year ago
[–] wischi@programming.dev 4 points 9 months ago

y2k38 will be even funnier than y2k and y3k I guess.

[–] wischi@programming.dev 17 points 10 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

But K.I.T.T. actually delivered on the full self driving part.

[–] wischi@programming.dev 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Thank you for taking the time to read it ❤️. I'm currently out of office I'll try to find and fix the typo you mentioned once I'm back, thanks for pointing it out.

[–] wischi@programming.dev 2 points 10 months ago

❤️ Thank you for taking the time to read it. And thank you so much for pointing that out, you are completely right and I totally didn't think about that while writing the article, probably because negative exponents are pretty rare in computer science (as in milli-bytes, etc.). I'll fix that in a few days. Thanks again for pointing that out.

[–] wischi@programming.dev 2 points 10 months ago

❤️ Thank you for taking the time to read it and thank you for your feedback, I really appreciate it.

[–] wischi@programming.dev 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

There is a benefit in using 1000 because it's consistent with all the other 1000 conversions from kg to gramm, km to meter, etc. And you can do it in your head because we use a base 10 number system.

36826639 bytes are 36.826639 MB. But how many MiB? I don't know, I couldn't tell you without a calculator.

[–] wischi@programming.dev 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (3 children)

The underlying chips certainly are exact powers of two but the drive size you get as a consumer is practically never an exact power of two, that's why it doesn't really make sense to divide by 1024.

The size you provided would be 500107862016 / 1024 / 1024 / 1024 = 465.76174163818359375 GiB

Divided by 1000³ it would be 500.107862016 GB, so both numbers are not "pretty" and would've to be rounded. That's why there is no benefit in using 1024 for storage devices, even SSDs.

The situation is a bit different with RAM. 16 "gig" modules are exactly 17179869184 bytes. https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=prime+factors+of+17179869184

So you could say 17.179869184 GB or 16 GiB. Note that those 16 GiB are not rounded and the exact number of bytes for that RAM module. So for memory like caches, RAM, etc. it definitely makes sense to use binary prefixes with 1024 conversion but for storage devices it wouldn't make a difference because you'd have to round anyway.

[–] wischi@programming.dev 1 points 10 months ago (5 children)

Not even SSDs are. Do you have an SSD? You should lookup the exact drive size in bytes, it's very likely not an exact power of two.

[–] wischi@programming.dev 4 points 10 months ago (9 children)

Thank you for taking the time to read it and your feedback.

Your replies here come off as pretty condescending.

That was definitely never my intention but a lot of people here said something similar. I should probably work on my English (I'm not a native speaker) to phrase things more carefully.

You shouldn't just say "did you read the article" and then "it's in this section of the article"

It never crossed my mind this could be interpreted in a negative way. I tried to gauge if someone read it and still disagreed or if someone didn't read it and disagrees, because those situations are two different things, at least for me. The hint with the sections was also meant as a pointer because I know that most people won't read the entire thing but maybe have 5min on their hand to read the relevant section.

[–] wischi@programming.dev 12 points 10 months ago

❤️ Thank you for taking the time to read it.

view more: ‹ prev next ›