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.

  • Deconceptualist@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    While we’re nitpicking, the post says multiple times that SI prefix symbols are “all uppercase except for kilo (k)”.

    That’s just factually wrong. More than half of them are lowercase! There’s centi- ©, micro- (µ), nano- (n), etc. On the positive side there’s even deca- (da) and hecto- (h), though they aren’t particularly common or useful. I did at least see milli- (m) and bit (b) mentioned in a brief note though.

    Obviously context matters and only the positive powers from kilo upward are relevant in computer science. But I studied chemistry and physics so I guess it irked me to see the statement repeatedly ignore all the negative powers of ten.

    Overall, good rant though 😅 I’ll be more careful to use KiB and MiB from here out when appropriate.

    • wischiOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 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.

      • Deconceptualist@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        I think it’s an easy fix if you just say “relevant SI units”. As you say, nobody should expect “milli-” here since bits are effectively atomic.