this post was submitted on 27 Dec 2023
96 points (68.2% liked)

Technology

60071 readers
3674 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 34 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I also assume that people are answering that way because they thought it was a question.

However, it's also possible that they saw it described as a 20 minute read, and knew that the answer actually takes about 10 seconds to read, and figured that they'd save people 19 minutes and 50 seconds.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It's true that the actual "story" is very short. 1 kB is 1000 bytes and 1 KiB is 1024 bytes. But the post is not about this, but about why calling 1024 a kilobyte always was wrong even in a historical context and even though almost everybody did that.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It’s true that the actual “story” is very short. 1 kB is 1000 bytes and 1 KiB is 1024 bytes. But the post is not about this, but about why calling 1024 a kilobyte always was wrong even in a historical context and even though almost everybody did that.

Yes. But it does raise the question of why you didn't say that in either your title:

Why a kilobyte is 1000 and not 1024 bytes

or your description:

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.

The title and description were your two chances to convince people to read your article. But what they say is that it's a 20 minute read for 10 seconds of information. There is nothing that says there will be historical context.

I get that you might want to make the title more clickbaitey, but why write a description out if you're not going to tell what's actually in the article?

So, that's my feedback. I hope this helps.

One other bit of closely-related feedback, for your writing, in general. Always start with the most important part. Assume that people will stop reading unless you convince them otherwise. Your title should convince people to read the article, or at least to read the description. The very first part of your description is your chance to convince people to click through to the article, but you used it to tell an anecdote about why you wrote the article.

I'm the kind of person who often reads articles all the way through, but I have discovered that most people lose interest quickly and will stop reading.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I tried to make the title the exact opposite of clickbait. There are no unanswered questions on purpose. No "Find out if a kilobyte is 1024 bytes or 1000 bytes". I think people are smart enough that I not just reiterate for 20min why a kilobyte is 1000 bytes but instead go into more details.

The main problem is probably that people won't sacrifice 20min of there time on something they are not sure if it's a good read but the only thing I can do is trying to encourage them to read it anyway.

There are not ads, no tracking, no cookies, no login, no newsletter, no paywall. I don't benefit if you read it. I'd like to clear up misconceptions but I can't force people to read it.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don’t benefit if you read it.

You don't benefit financially, but there are other benefits. For example, you specifically asked for feedback, and you have received some.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

But that's also a simple answer: kilo is a metric prefix that means 1000, so kilobyte means 1000 bytes. The historical context is the history of the metric system, which is much older than modern computers.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 year ago (5 children)

However, it’s also possible that they saw it described as a 20 minute read

Bit of a tangent and anecdotal, but I went back in to higher education a few years ago. I'm middle-aged, I was surrounded by younger people. We're asked to read an article, everyone starts reading. I read it through, underline the important bits, I'm done reading. I look around. Everyone's still reading. Oh well, they'll be done soon. Nope. I think it took most of them 15 minutes to read an article I'd read in under 5. I was a bit perplexed. This is higher education, these aren't idiots, these are people who should be able to read articles quickly.

There are plenty of reports of functional literacy decreasing. That children are slower at reading and are less able to understand what they've read. Anecdotally, it seems like younger generations really aren't used to reading longer articles anymore. I grew up reading books as a kid. That's what we did before phones and the internet. I wonder if younger generations simply don't have that much experience reading, which is why it takes them so long to read, which is why they read even less.

In the case of this article, they see 20 minutes, they're scared off. So they simply guess what was in the article. That's pretty worrying if that's what people do. If you're unable or unwilling to read longer stuff, you're likely to make ill informed choices or be more easily influenced.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I read slowly. It sucks, but it's not from lack of experience or lack of education. Reading speed seems a weird metric to start wondering if people lack intelligence.

Being able to read quickly is a valuable skill. I don't think I could handle jobs like editing, policy making, or lawyering simply because there are not enough hours in the day to make up for my reading deficit.

Of course, your anecdote is about a group, and mine is about one person. But the sweeping conclusion (if even it isn't a firm one) on generations irks me. Every generation has its outliers. There will never be a generation without hardworking geniuses in every active field. As far as I know, you are an outlier in your generation, and the comparison simply fails. Maybe peers you knew personally didn't get the cold judgment of intelligence by reading speed that you are applying to kids you don't have a relationship with.

I don't know. I will never dismiss the importance of reading. But you sound like Lucy here.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I read relatively slowly, but I have the ability to read much faster. I simply like reading more slowly. I have this weird suspicion that people who read very quickly are getting information more quickly, but that they're either not absorbing it fully, or they're not enjoying it as much as I do. But that's obviously a biased perspective.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

I had a literature professor who liked to say "Speed reading is for people who run through musuems."

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

TLDR: old person went back to school and reads faster than younger people, thinks younger people don't know how to read quickly.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Bit ironic that you don't seem to have read my comment properly.

Firstly, you missed the caveat about the example used being anecdotal.

Then you seem to have missed the bit about reports suggesting functional literacy is decreasing.

A quick google:

https://hechingerreport.org/americas-reading-problem-scores-were-dropping-even-before-the-pandemic/
https://hechingerreport.org/proof-points-why-reading-comprehension-is-deteriorating/

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

That's the joke, but ok.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

I'm middle-aged and read slowly. Explain that, asshole.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago

they see 20 minutes, they’re scared off

I'm not "scared off". I'm on Lemmy to have discussions, not to read articles. If I want to read articles I'll get a magazine.