| 1 |
On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Ciaran McCreesh |
| 2 |
<ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
> On Sun, 30 Mar 2014 12:27:34 -0400 |
| 4 |
> Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
>> As soon as you start getting into anything that involves the real |
| 6 |
>> world and engineering |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Which isn't the case here, so this whole thing is irrelevant. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
What prevents the output of a tool from being used in an engineering |
| 11 |
context? In any case, my concern is more with ambiguity (when |
| 12 |
software tells me I have 1GB of free space, what does that mean?). I |
| 13 |
think GB are more useful than GiB in most cases (though I explicitly |
| 14 |
stated in my first proposal that there are situations where this isn't |
| 15 |
the case), but I care more about ambiguity. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Since definitions of units are generally standardized across all |
| 18 |
potential uses (do you want a km to be different depending on whether |
| 19 |
you're measuring road length, speed, or wavelengths?), it only made |
| 20 |
sense for the ISO/etc to pick definitions that were useful in the |
| 21 |
broadest sense. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Rich |
Archives