Sampled at what resolution, though? It’s a physical painting and the true, atomic-scale resolution would make this whole system useless.
May I suggest the entire constitution in ASCII (American Standard Code for Information Interchange) instead? Bonus points if any future amendments change the whole system.
A 1 foot tall stack holds 1,647,360 bits of data if all 80 columns are used. If only 72 columns are used for data then it’s 1,482,624 bits of data and the remaining columns can be used to number each card so they can be put back in order after the stack is dropped.
IBM standard cards are one 48th of a barleycorn thick. I believe IBM measured from the 1932 Iowa Reference Barleycorn, now kept in the vault inside Mt Rushmore.
These are all rough averages, of course, but Tweets can be rather bigger than 140 bytes since they’re Unicode, not ASCII. What’s Twitter without emoji?
Naw, it’s actually one Kinda Gallon; a Kinda Gallon of course referring to the average of the masses of a gallon of water, a gallon of beer, and a gallon of whiskey.
KiB, MiB, GiB etc are more clear. It makes a big difference especially 1TB vs 1TiB.
The American way would probably be still using the units you listed but still meaning 1024, just to be confusing.
Either that or maybe something that uses physical measurement of a hard-drive (or CD?) using length. Like that new game is 24.0854 inches of data (maybe it could be 1.467 miles of CD?).
As far as I know, RAM only comes in GiB sizes. There is some overhead that reduces the amount you see in the OS though. But that complaint is valid for storage devices if you don’t know the units and expect TB/GB on the box to match the numbers in Windows
The American way would probably be still using the units you listed but still meaning 1024, just to be confusing.
American here. This is actually the proper way. KB is 1024 bytes. MB is 1024 KB. The terms were invented and used like that for decades.
Moving to ‘proper metric’ where KB is 1000 bytes was a scam invented by storage manufacturers to pretend to have bigger hard drives.
And then inventing the KiB prefixes was a soft-bellied capitulation by Europeans to those storage manufacturers.
Real hackers still use Kilo/Mega/Giga/Tera prefixes while still thinking in powers of 2. If we accept XiB, we admit that the scummy storage vendors have won.
Note: I’ll also accept that I’m an idiot American and therefore my opinion is stupid and invalid, but I stand by it.
Kilo comes from greek and has meant 1000 for 1000’s of years. If you want 2^10 to be represented using greek prefixes, it better involve “deca” and “di”. Kilo (and di) would be usable for roughly 1.071508607186267 x 10^301 byte. KB was wrong when it was invented, but they were only wrong for decades at least.
Computers have ruled the planet for longer than the Greeks ever did. The history lesson is appreciated, but we’re living in the future, now, and the future is digital.
No the correct way is to use the proper fucking metric standard. Use Mi or Gi if you need it. We have computers that can divide large numbers now. We don’t need bit shifting.
In general integer division is implemented using a form of long division, in binary. There is no base-10 arithmetic involved. It’s a relatively expensive operation which usually requires multiple clock cycles to complete, whereas dividing by a power of two (“bit shifting”) is trivial and can be done in hardware simply by routing the signals appropriately, without any logic gates.
In general integer division is implemented using a form of long division, in binary.
The point of my comment is that division in binary IS bitshifting. There is no other way to do it if you want the real answer. You can estimate, you can round, but the computational method of division is done via bitshifting of binarary expansions of numbers in an ALU.
The metric standard is to measure information in bits.
Bytes are a non-metric unit. Not a power-of-ten multiple of the metric base unit for information, the bit.
If you’re writing “1 million bytes” and not “8 million bits” then you’re not using metric.
If you aren’t using metric then the metric prefix definitions don’t apply.
There is plenty of precedent for the prefixes used in metric to refer to something other than an exact power of 1000 when not combined with a metric base unit. A microcomputer is not one one-thousandth of a computer. One thousand microscopes do not add up to one scope. Megastructures are not exactly one million times the size of ordinary structures. Etc.
Finally: This isn’t primarily about bit shifting, it’s about computers being based on binary representation and the fact that memory addresses are stored and communicated using whole numbers of bits, which naturally leads to memory sizes (for entire memory devices or smaller structures) which are powers of two. Though the fact that no one is going to do something as idiotic as introducing an expensive and completely unnecessary division by a power of ten for every memory access just so you can have 1000-byte MMU pages rather than 4096 also plays a part.
The meter is an French fascist measurement made by the court jester.
"Since 2019 the metre has been defined as the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of
1/299792458 of a second ..." [Wikipedia]
What is wrong with this definition?
The metre claims to be a 'non-imperial' basis of measurement.
But the basis of the metre is the imperial or ephemeral second, which is the ultimate imperial measurement. Seconds are an imperial unit. The measurement of time is fundamental to the ruler ... get it?
So the arbitrarily devised metre is founded upon the imperial second. Oops. Now why again did you say the metric system is 'superior' to the imperial system?
Metric supremacists are fascist rubes who don't realize they were pwnd by the empire before their rebellion even had a name or gang sign. They wanted to overthrow the king and based their coup on the king's fundamental unit of regal measurement: time. Oops. This is a case of killing the baby in the cradle.
Imperial units of measurement are based upon things found in nature. The second is a division of the solar and astronomical day. A second is 1/86400th of a day, and is based again on sexigesimal math, which is found EVERYWHERE in nature.
Every good programmer should already know where this is going.
There is nothing arbitrary about this. The imperial measurement is neatly aligned to solar and astronomical cycles and to the latitudes and longitudes of the earth. In short, the imperial system of measurement had already measured the equatorial and tropical circuits of the earth and the sun's path over 3000 years ago, and based measurements upon that.
Then along came the metric aristocrats, who pretended this had never been done before, speculated a false circumference of the earth, and came up with a flawed metre based on that false measurement, then changed it decades later to the distance traveled by light in an imperial second, unaware that no constant speed of light has yet been proved conclusively, but only assumed.
Whereas the imperial system is based upon measurements which have been observed unchanged, verifiable, and reproducible, FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS.
Tell me again why the metric system is, 'superior'?
The metre is merely a speculation and the so-called speed of light has NOT been conclusively proven, considering special relativity and all that other aristocratic bollocks. Also complicating the matter is the specific definition of, "light traveling in a vacuum." OK, sparky, how are you going to locate a laboratory in a vacuum at least 1 light second in length to conduct this experimental measurement and prove it?
This fallacy is called an 'unfalsifiable' claim. Yup, The metric system is based upon a pseudo-scientific conjecture and fallacy. Whereas the imperial system is based upon thousands of years of repeatable observation. And yet 'scientists' somehow are confused about the reality of the situation.
As I've said elsewhere, worldwide science and academia have been growing progressively more delusional for the past couple of centuries.
In the end the aristocrats will bow to the king they hate. Thank God Americans have refused to bow to this dumb idol. Stay strong Murrikanz.
Here's a shout out to the limeys who still weigh in stones! Long live the king's foot!
This is such a weird take to me. We don’t even colloquially discuss computer storage in terms of 1000.
The Greek terms were used from the beginning of computing and the new terms of kibi and mebi (etc.) were only added in 1998 when Members it the IEC got upset. But despite that, most personal computers still report in the binary way. The decimal is only used on boxes for marketing terms.
Calling 1048576 bytes an "American megabyte" might be technically wrong, but it's still slightly less goofy-looking than the more conventional "MiB" notation. I wish you good luck in making it the new standard.
Most people would use “word”, “half-word”, “quarter-word” etc, but the Anglophiles insist on “tuppit”, “ternary piece”, “span” and “chunk” (that’s 5 bits, or 12 old bits).
I’ve seen so many products advertised by how many “songs” or “movies” it can hold. Never mind you can encode the same movie to be massive or small. So I think we’ve found the right answer!
All definitely not metric as metric uses steps of 1000 (and there’s also 10 and 100 and 1/10th and 1/100th but that doesn’t extend to 10000 and 1/10000th).
The KiB, MiB, etc, the 2^10 scale is called binary prefixes (as opposed to decimal prefixes KB, MB, etc) and standardised by the IEC.
And while the B in KiB is always going to mean eight bits it’s not a given that a byte is actually eight bits, network people still use “octet” to disambiguate because back in the days there were plenty of architectures around with other byte sizes. “byte” simply means “smallest number of bits an operation like addition will be done in” in the context of architectures. Then you have word for two bytes, d(ouble)word for four, q(uad)word for eight, o(cto)word for 16, and presumably h(ex)word for 32 it’s already hard to find owords in the wild. Yes it’s off by one of course it’s off by one what do you expect it’s about computers. There’s also nibble for half a byte.
EDIT: Actually that’s incorrect word is also architecture-dependent, the word/dword/qword sequence applies to architectures (like x86) which went from being 16-bit machines to now being 64 bit while keeping backwards compatibility. E.g. RISC-V uses 32-bit words, 16 bits there are a half-word.
The bit, at least, is not under contention everyone agrees what it is. Though you can occasionally see people staring in wild disbelief and confusion at statements such as “this information can be stored in 1.58 bits”. That number is ~ log2~ 3, that is, the information that fits in one trit. Such as “true, false, maybe”.
So you’re saying my proposed imperial units depend on where you are, and who is using them, for what purpose? That just sells me on them as imperial units even more. :)
Add comment