I often find myself explaining the same things in real life and online, so I recently started writing technical blog posts.

This one is about why it was a mistake to call 1024 bytes a kilobyte. It’s about a 20min read so thank you very much in advance if you find the time to read it.

Feedback is very much welcome. Thank you.

  • wischi@programming.devOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    52
    ·
    10 months ago

    Pretty obvious that you didn’t read the article. If you find the time I’d like to encourage you to read it. I hope it clears up some misconceptions and make things clearer why even in those 60+ years it was always intellectually dishonest to call 1024 byte a kilobyte.

    You should at least read “(Un)lucky coincidence”

    • λλλ@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      23
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      kilobit = 1000 bits. Kilobyte = 1000 bytes.

      How is anything about that intellectually dishonest??

      The only ones being dishonest are the drive manufacturers, like the person above said. They sell storage drives by advertising them in the byte quantity but they’re actually in the bit quantity.

      • locuester@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        28
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        They sell storage drives by advertising them in the byte quantity but they’re actually in the bit quantity.

        No, they absolutely don’t. That’d be off by 8x.

        The subject at hand has nothing to do with bits. Please, read what OP posted. It’s about 1024 vs 1000

      • wischi@programming.devOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        17
        ·
        10 months ago

        Calling 1024 a kilo is intellectually dishonest. Your conversation is perfectly fine.