Kb vs Kib

I know that KB and KiB have both been deemed as acceptable, and sure, maybe 1 KiB of storage might only give 1 KB of useful space with parity, but not every means of storing data works exactly like that. So I still personally feel like the use of KB to indicate 1024 is a bit stupid. I will accept it, as it is, after all, an agreed upon standard, but I think it is stupid nonetheless.

And again, I just mostly use programs which display things in KiB, MiB, GiB, etc., and therefore that is what I am used to using, and why I used those units initially.

Wait, hold on, KB is not even right. If it were kilobytes, it should be kB.

What is stupid is that the drive manufacturers use one that doesn’t make any sense with what the drives are actually used for. Good luck finding a single program that reports data as SI bytes and not binary bytes. To be fair, I used to use a torrenting program that had a really well-hidden option for that.

And I still think that calling something a "kilo"-byte, when in every other part of physics and science kilo means 10³ and nothing else, is dumb. Trying to change it at this point, when the current way of doing things is already well adopted, would be almost even dumber and create even more confusion. But being called that to begin with is the dumb part.

Kilobit and megabit are fine, because those generally mean that, and are mostly used for network speeds anyways. But in my opinion, nobody — not drive manufacturers, not Windows — should be using these prefixes when they do not mean what they are defined as.

src

If you enjoy strategy, building and war games then you might enjoy this amazing game which is called Terracore. https://www.terracoregame.com/