No, they mean 192KB. Because that's how they refer to it literally every other time. Oh, and because it's NOT 196 thousand. 3072*64 = 196608. Which rounds to... 197 thousand. (But is exactly 192KB - or 192KiB if you prefer that sort of thing)
> No, they mean 192KB. Because that's how they refer to it literally every other time.
Are you suggesting that you believe that both the number and the unit were a typo?
> Oh, and because it's NOT 196 thousand. 3072*64 = 196608. Which rounds to... 197 thousand.
Truncation is a totally valid way of representing numbers when pinpoint accuracy isn't really necessary. "32K" is a very common way to refer to the number 32768, for example.
> or 192KiB if you prefer that sort of thing
I appreciate the caveat here as I very much do not and believe that the concept of kibibytes being distinct from kilobytes are a scam perpetuated by hard-drive and floppy disk manufacturers as a way to cut costs while still advertising the same storage space. It definitely makes sense to use the same definitions for the SI prefixes, but even two decades after that ISO was published no-one actually says "kibibytes", so clearly it's not much of a standard.
> I appreciate the caveat here as I very much do not and believe that the concept of kibibytes being distinct from kilobytes are a scam perpetuated by hard-drive and floppy disk manufacturers as a way to cut costs while still advertising the same storage space
Except that you just said that "32768->32K" involves truncation. What is 32*1024? 32 KiB is exactly, no truncation involved, 32768.
(BTW, kibibytes are distinct from kilobytes because 1024 is distinct from 1000. Similarly, 1048576 is distinct from 1000000.)
> Truncation is a totally valid way of representing numbers [with lower precision]
No. Rounding is.
--
Once again. THEY, the authors of the post, use unit multipliers of 1024 in every other figure on the page. Except in this one particular figure where you claim they intentionally use 1000. I frankly don't care whether they define KB as 1000B or 1024B. Either way works. But they should, at the very least, be consistent within the space of a single blog post.
