"(...) he had the idea for the update when he saw media reports using unsanctioned prefixes for data storage such as brontobytes and hellabytes. (...)" and "The only letters that were not used for other units or other symbols were R and Q"
So it seems the new prefixes are partly initiated by the exponential computer storage needs rather than scientific needs. So they might need to move again soon. However the SI has exhausted the available stock of letters. Maybe Greek letters next time like micro for 10^-6.
Anyway does it really matter for IT people? I have seen so many people mixing up bit and byte, milli- and mega- as well. There are countless usages of mb all over the Internet to express MB.
The only use cases I have seen for units larger than 'petabyte' are those representing the maximum allowed file sizes for ZFS, Btrfs and such. I also don't see a point in inventing more prefixes so that statisticians don't have to use scientific notation for large numbers. What use is that? How many people know how much a yottabyte is? If they need to Google the answer, that defeats the point.
1e12 terabytes seems easier to digest than 1 whatever-the-hell-,-I-don't-know-what-this-unit-is-meant-to-represent-byte. Not to mention, easier to read.
Hmm, why would you mix 1e12 terabytes instead of saying 1e24 bytes? Why do we talk about 200k USD salaries instead of 2e5 USD? Or why isn't a US postage stamp marked as 6e-1 USD?
Also: in the past 25 years, "tera-scale" (TB and TFLOP) went from a prognostication about future high-performance computing into something you find in affordable consumer products. When campus computing centers are now deploying hundreds of petabytes, it seems myopic to think the PB threshold is anything but a signpost flying by the window...
SI prefixes could originally be combined like that: it was perfectly fine to say one hectokilometre. Such usage is now deprecated, though. You'd have to say 0.1 megametre instead.
Uppercase MB is megabytes, lowercase mb is millibars. Both can go through a series of tubes, but millibars are also useful in dump trucks, to make the wheels go round and round.
The prefixes ronna and quetta represent 10^27 and 10^30, and ronto and quecto signify 10^−27 and 10^−30. Earth weighs around one ronnagram, and an electron’s mass is about one quectogram.
This is the first update to the prefix system since 1991, when the organization added zetta (10^21), zepto (10^−21), yotta (10^24) and yocto (10^−24).
The character sequence 10^27 is of equal length as 'ronna' and much cleaner. The only thing left was a smart short way to speak it without losing the semantics.
How about 10^17 == "tenset", 10^27 == "venset", ...
Inspired by French vingt, from Old French vint, from Latin vīgintī.
Since the length of words (should) correspond to the frequency of usage, longer variants would be ok if not preferable too:
Yes and the circumference of the earth is about 40 million meters. This is because a meter was originally supposed to be 1/10E6 the distance from the equator to the north pole through Paris.
Earth’s circumference around the poles is now given as 40,007.863 km [1]. So when the French Academy of Sciences defined the metre in the 1790s [2] the distance they measured from equator to North Pole was off by less than 2 km.
Nitpick: 1/10⁷, not 1/10⁶. They picked the power of ten that gave a reasonably-sized unit of length.
They also made things complex by then picking a unit of mass that’s inconsistent with that: a gram isn’t the mass of 1m³ of water, but of 1/10⁶ m³ of water (a cubic meter is 10³ liters, and a liter of water weighs 10³ grams)
For me, it's: Earth is a blue marble - in "Mega-view" (Mm zoomed to mm) - with a diameter of a baker's dozen Megameters. The volume of a ball is one half of its enclosing box, so that's ~(1E7)^3 or 1E21 m^3. Earth is rock (3 Mg/m^3) and iron (8 Mg/m^3) and averages 5 Mg/m^3. Or just bracket it - water,lead,gold is ~ 1,10,20 Mg/m^3). Giving an Earth mass of 5E24 kg. Actual value 6E24 kg. Brackets of water and lead give 1E24 to 11E24 kg.
> a great way of drilling in these tidbits
For me it's: Arm-sized, hand-sized, fingernail-sized, and "tiny"-sized, are 1000, 100, 10, and 1 mm. Zooming these by 1000^n gives scale-model "views". Mega-view with planet balls, kilo-view with cities in your palm, meter-view with buildings in hand, micro-view with red blood cell M&M's (yum), nano-view with virus balls (chewy shell, stringy inside), pico-view with H2O bumpy basketballs, femto-view with nuclei marbles. It's easier to remember how big things are, once they're toy-sized, and you've handled and played with them.
Just something I crafted years back. Resulting videos didn't seem to user test well. I was set to dust it off, doing rapid iterative development over gorilla street usability testing... in Spring 2020. Ah well.
And here in US, we are stuck with imperial units like it was 1800s: oz, pounds, inches, feet, miles, etc for all common usage. When a foreigner visits here, the first thing they realize is how US has truly siloed itself from the rest of the world.
Readit News
"(...) he had the idea for the update when he saw media reports using unsanctioned prefixes for data storage such as brontobytes and hellabytes. (...)" and "The only letters that were not used for other units or other symbols were R and Q"
So it seems the new prefixes are partly initiated by the exponential computer storage needs rather than scientific needs. So they might need to move again soon. However the SI has exhausted the available stock of letters. Maybe Greek letters next time like micro for 10^-6.
Anyway does it really matter for IT people? I have seen so many people mixing up bit and byte, milli- and mega- as well. There are countless usages of mb all over the Internet to express MB.
1e12 terabytes seems easier to digest than 1 whatever-the-hell-,-I-don't-know-what-this-unit-is-meant-to-represent-byte. Not to mention, easier to read.
Also: in the past 25 years, "tera-scale" (TB and TFLOP) went from a prognostication about future high-performance computing into something you find in affordable consumer products. When campus computing centers are now deploying hundreds of petabytes, it seems myopic to think the PB threshold is anything but a signpost flying by the window...
Eg: 1 QB (quettabyte) == 1,000,000 YB (yottabytes) == 1 MYB (mega-yottabyte)
Without the new prefixes, we could have gone to 1 YYB (1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, or 10^48 bytes)
Every prefix up until now has been consistent about the first vowel mirroring the Greek word:
The prefixes ronna and quetta represent 10^27 and 10^30, and ronto and quecto signify 10^−27 and 10^−30. Earth weighs around one ronnagram, and an electron’s mass is about one quectogram.
This is the first update to the prefix system since 1991, when the organization added zetta (10^21), zepto (10^−21), yotta (10^24) and yocto (10^−24).
(A bit confusing since most sources list electron mass as 9x10^-31 kilograms, rather than 9x10^-28 grams.)
I think this is a error by nature.com, and Earth weighs around 5.97 ronnagram
The earth's mass may well be 5.97 ronnagrams.
The weight of the earth would be measured in newtons, yes?
How about 10^17 == "tenset", 10^27 == "venset", ...
Inspired by French vingt, from Old French vint, from Latin vīgintī.
Since the length of words (should) correspond to the frequency of usage, longer variants would be ok if not preferable too:
10^… == tento…
10^16 == tento-seize …
10^6 is the same length as "mega".
10^9 is the same length as "giga".
Why is length suddenly an argument against new prefixes?
[0]: https://www.bipm.org/documents/20126/64811223/Resolutions-20...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_prefix#Unofficial_prefixe...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hella#SI_prefix
My physics teacher always had a great way of drilling in these tidbits.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_circumference
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metre#Meridional_definition
They also made things complex by then picking a unit of mass that’s inconsistent with that: a gram isn’t the mass of 1m³ of water, but of 1/10⁶ m³ of water (a cubic meter is 10³ liters, and a liter of water weighs 10³ grams)
Centimeter-gram-second (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centimetre–gram–second_system_...) really is superior in that sense (but of course, that’s relative to the arbitrary choice of using water to convert between mass and volume, and from that, length)
For me, it's: Earth is a blue marble - in "Mega-view" (Mm zoomed to mm) - with a diameter of a baker's dozen Megameters. The volume of a ball is one half of its enclosing box, so that's ~(1E7)^3 or 1E21 m^3. Earth is rock (3 Mg/m^3) and iron (8 Mg/m^3) and averages 5 Mg/m^3. Or just bracket it - water,lead,gold is ~ 1,10,20 Mg/m^3). Giving an Earth mass of 5E24 kg. Actual value 6E24 kg. Brackets of water and lead give 1E24 to 11E24 kg.
> a great way of drilling in these tidbits
For me it's: Arm-sized, hand-sized, fingernail-sized, and "tiny"-sized, are 1000, 100, 10, and 1 mm. Zooming these by 1000^n gives scale-model "views". Mega-view with planet balls, kilo-view with cities in your palm, meter-view with buildings in hand, micro-view with red blood cell M&M's (yum), nano-view with virus balls (chewy shell, stringy inside), pico-view with H2O bumpy basketballs, femto-view with nuclei marbles. It's easier to remember how big things are, once they're toy-sized, and you've handled and played with them.
Just something I crafted years back. Resulting videos didn't seem to user test well. I was set to dust it off, doing rapid iterative development over gorilla street usability testing... in Spring 2020. Ah well.
Deleted Comment
Deleted Comment