[–] 7 points 1 week ago

I don’t know why the meme has the highest IQ person say

Every time I see the midwit meme format, it reads like OP imagines that they're the 145 IQ guy who is above it all, when all other evidence suggests that they're closer to the 55 IQ guy.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 11 points 1 week ago* (1 child)

    I want to agree with you two, because I hate competing standards, but you gotta admit gigabyte was a poor choice from the start because it took the SI prefix and made it mean something else. Creating Gibi is just correcting that mistake

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago* (1 child)

    fastfetch output :

    Disk (/): 203.45 GiB / 224.94 GiB (90%) - ext4
    Disk (/media/skullgrid/Data): 684.44 GiB / 913.43 GiB (75%) - fuseblk
    

    I didn't realise that Linus Torvalds changed his name...

    ... unless you think I specifically went out and bought a laptop that advertised a 913.43 GiB secondary drive?

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [+] -13 points 1 week ago (4 children)

    No, the problem is making up a new word (gibibyte) and expecting people to use it when there’s already a word for that (gigabyte).

    It’s the hard drive manufacturers that should change.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 6 points 1 week ago

    Which itself is for marketing reasons, a manufacturer would find it difficult to compete with others using units that make their drives look larger or cheaper at "same capacity".

    There is also the smaller amount w!ndows will secretly waste for its own pleasure (few GiB iirc). And an even smaller amount that gets wasted in partitioning. Usually around 5MiB, you can reduce it to 16kiB with some manual configuration in gdisk, or you can skip partition tables entirely for some end-game cursedness. And then the filesystem will take some. ext4 takes based on the number of inodes, for large drives that can be tens of GiB. Btrfs takes almost nothing (though in the background allocates in steps of 1GiB, so some tools might show 2GiB used as soon as data is written). Then if you try to sum all files on disk, that will land even lower for many more reasons.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago

    Depends on the file system. If you are using FAT-8; it is 256:1 if you are on ZFS it is as low as 1:4.

    It also depends on composition of the data stored. If it is Linux ISOs; it is 4GB:64KB. If it is old C source code; it is 512B:4KB on ext4

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago

    Because back in the 1980s RAM chips were individually sold and the number of address pins exactly matched the 2^(# of pins) amount of memory addresses contained in the chip (for cost savings purposes) and only with the later column strobe addressing DRAM did that change but at that point they couldn’t deviate from the 1024 standard without getting sued (a couple did and went out of business).

    And since the RAM chips themselves are stuck using 1024 and the RAM sticks are made of matching RAM chips (for cost and performance reasons); it will remain that way until people start buying systems on a chip with embedded RAM.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • view more: ‹ prev next ›