zlacker

> The wish is for "kilobyte" to have one meaning.

Which is the reality. "kilobyte" means "1000 bytes". There's no possible discussion over this fact.

Many people have been using it wrong for decades, but its literal value did not change.

>>pif+(OP)
In computers, "kilobyte" has a context dependent meaning. It has been thus for decades. It does not only mean 1000 bytes.

>>pif+(OP)
That is a prescriptivist way of thinking about language, which is useful if you enjoy feeling righteous about correctness, but not so helpful for understanding how communication actually works. In reality-reality, "kilobyte" may mean either "1000 bytes" or "1024 bytes", depending on who is saying it, whom they are saying it to, and what they are saying it about.

You are free to intend only one meaning in your own communication, but you may sometimes find yourself being misunderstood: that, too, is reality.

>>marssa+d1
I understand the usual meaning, but I use the correct meaning when precision is required.

>>bigstr+T
I understand the usual meaning, but I use the correct meaning when precision is required.

>>pif+(OP)
The line between "literal" and "colloquial" becomes blurred when a word consisting of strongly-defined parts ("kilo") gets used in official, standardized contexts with a different meaning.

In fact, this is the only case I can think of where that has ever happened.

>>happyt+X3
"colloquial" has no place in official contexts. I'll happily talk about kB and MB without considering the small difference between 1000 and 1024, but on a contract "kilo" will unequivocally mean 1000, unless explicitely defined as 1024 for the sake of that document.

>>pif+O2
How can there be both a "usual meaning" and a "correct meaning" when you assert that there is only one meaning and "There's no possible discussion over this fact."

You can say that one meaning is more correct than the other, but that doesn't vanish the other meaning from existence.

>>pif+Q2
That's funny. If I used the "correct" meaning when precision was required then I'd be wrong every time I need to use it. In computers, bytes are almost always measured in base-2 increments.

>>pif+(OP)
Knuth thought the international standard promulgated naming (kibibyte) was DOA.

https://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/news99.html

And he was right.

Context is important.

"K" is an excellent prefix for 1024 bytes when working with small computers, and a metric shit ton of time has been saved by standardizing on that.

When you get to bigger units, marketing intervenes, and, as other commenters have pointed out, we have the storage standard of MB == 1000 * 1024.

But why is that? Certainly it's because of the marketing, but also it's because KB has been standardized for bytes.

> Which is the reality. "kilobyte" means "1000 bytes". There's no possible discussion over this fact.

You couldn't be more wrong. Absolutely nobody talks about 8K bytes of memory and means 8000.

>>pif+O2
The correct meaning has always been 1024 bytes where I’m from. Then I worked with more people like you.

Now, it depends.

>>pif+Q2
When dealing with microcontrollers and datasheets and talking to other designers, yes precision is required, and, e.g. 8KB means, unequivocally and unambiguously, 8192 bytes.

>>pif+O2
When precision is required, you either use kibibytes or define your kilobytes explicitly. Otherwise there is a real risk that the other party does not share your understanding of what a kilobyte should mean in that context. Then the numbers you use have at most one significant figure.

>>marssa+d1
It's not even really prescriptivist thinking… "Kilobyte" to mean both 1,000 B & 1,024 B is well-established usage, particularly dependent on context (with the context mostly being HDD manufacturers who want to inflate their drive sizes, and … the abomination that is the 1.44 MB diskette…). But a word can be dependent on context, even in prescriptivist settings.

E.g., M-W lists both, with even the 1,024 B definition being listed first. Wiktionary lists the 1,024 B definition, though it is tagged as "informal".

As a prescriptivist myself I would love if the world could standardize on kilo = 1000, kibi = 1024, but that'll likely take some time … and the introduction of the word to the wider public, who I do not think is generally aware of the binary prefixes, and some large companies deciding to use the term, which they likely won't do, since companies are apt to always trade for low-grade perpetual confusion over some short-term confusion during the switch.

>>pif+R9
> on a contract "kilo" will unequivocally mean 1000, unless explicitely defined as 1024 for the sake of that document.

If we are talking about kilobytes, it could just as easily the opposite.

Unless you were referring to only contracts which you yourself draft, in which case it'd be whatever you personally want.

>>deatha+nq
Does anyone, other than HDD manufacturers who want to inflate their drive sizes, actually want a 1000-based kilobyte? What would such a unit be useful for? I suspect that a world which standardized on kibi = 1024 would be a world which abandoned the word "kilobyte" altogether.

>>zephen+Hh
Ummm, should we tell him?

>>deatha+nq
> with the context mostly being HDD manufacturers who want to inflate their drive sizes

This is a myth. The first IBM harddrive was 5,000,000 characters in 1956 - before bytes were even common usage. Drives have always been base10, it's not a conspiracy.

Drives are base10, lines are base10, clocks are base10, pretty much everything but RAM is base10. Base2 is the exception, not the rule.

>>kstrau+yA
That I can't type worth shit?

Yeah, I already knew that, lol.

But thanks for bringing it to my attention. :-)

>>zephen+3D
I kid good-naturedly. I'm always horrified at what autocorrect has done to my words after it's too late to edit or un-send them. I swear I write words goodly, for realtime!

>>marssa+kw
It is helpful in telecommunication.