• RedSnt 👓♂️🖥️@feddit.dk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 days ago

    I was told a long time ago by a teacher that “there are no whole numbers after the comma”. That is to say, one should say one-point-three-two, but not a lot of people I’ve met since care either way.

    • SatyrSack@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Agree. For things like semantic versioning, in which “1.20.1” and “1.2.1” are two different things, you want to pronounce them “one point twenty point one” and “one point two dot one”, respectively. But that is a bit of an outlier. File size should be pronounced “normally”, because “1.20” and “1.2” are the same value.

        • comfy@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          I disagree. I would personally find one point two zero point one to be more natural and easier to understand.

          I disagree with that, because we’re dealing with a number and not a fraction. Linux kernel 4.20 is not equal to Linux kernel 4.2, we’re actually dealing with the integer 20 here. (yes, alphabetical sorting on a download server has lead me to download an outdated kernel version once)

          • WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            Don’t you know that my head canon is universal canon? /s

            You make a compelling point. I concede to your logic, but refuse to change my ways.

        • davidgro@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          In that case it’s actually the twentieth (or more likely twenty first) minor version though, it’s not actually a decimal

    • blackbrook@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      The only way you could use ‘thirty two’ correctly for that number would be ‘one and thirty two hundredths’ which would be pretty unusual.

  • EvilBit@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    I grew up with science classes telling us always state the digits individually. One point three two.

    • davidgro@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Very little, around 60k.

      A 1.44 “MB” floppy is 1440k, or about 1.406 real MB, and of that the space used by the FAT file system reduces it to around 1.38 free space.
      For some reason I couldn’t find the exact number and don’t have any handy to check it myself.

      • over_clox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago
        
        Modified versions of various blank floppies
        -------------------------------------------
        These modifications reduce the number of
        FAT tables from 2 to 1 and also reduce the
        number of root entries down to 16 files,
        which frees up some extra storage space.
        
        The 1.72MB format can ONLY be used on Win9X
        systems on real hardware, as not even WinNT
        can access tracks 81 or 82 on floppy disks.
        Disk image programs like WinImage can still
        access files within 1.72MB floppy images.
        
        
        
        1.44MB Standard:
        80 Tracks		18 Sectors/Track
        2880 Sectors Total	1474560 Bytes Total
        -------------------------------------------
        Sectors Per Cluster: 1	Number of FATs: 2
        Max Root Entries: 224	Sectors Per FAT: 9
        1457664 Bytes Data
        
        1.44MB Maxed:
        -------------------------------------------
        Sectors Per Cluster: 4	Number of FATs: 1
        Max Root Entries: 64	Sectors Per FAT: 3
        1470464 Bytes Data
        
        Differences:
        -------------------------------------------
        12800 Bytes More, 160 Less Root Entries
        
        
        
        1.68MB Standard:
        80 Tracks		21 Sectors/Track
        3360 Sectors Total	1720320 Bytes Total
        -------------------------------------------
        Sectors Per Cluster: 1	Number of FATs: 2
        Max Root Entries: 224	Sectors Per FAT: 10
        1702400 Bytes Data
        
        1.68MB Maxed:
        -------------------------------------------
        Sectors Per Cluster: 4	Number of FATs: 1
        Max Root Entries: 64	Sectors Per FAT: 3
        1716224 Bytes Data
        
        Differences:
        -------------------------------------------
        13824 Bytes More, 160 Less Root Entries
        
        
        
        DMF 1024 Standard:
        80 Tracks		21 Sectors/Track
        3360 Sectors Total	1720320 Bytes Total
        -------------------------------------------
        Sectors Per Cluster: 2	Number of FATs: 2
        Max Root Entries: 16	Sectors Per FAT: 5
        1714176 Bytes Data
        
        DMF 1024 Maxed:
        -------------------------------------------
        Sectors Per Cluster: 4	Number of FATs: 1
        Max Root Entries: 64	Sectors Per FAT: 3
        1716224 Bytes Data
        
        2048 Bytes More, 48 More Root Entries
        
        
        
        DMF 2048 Standard:
        80 Tracks		21 Sectors/Track
        3360 Sectors Total	1720320 Bytes Total
        -------------------------------------------
        Sectors Per Cluster: 4	Number of FATs: 2
        Max Root Entries: 16	Sectors Per FAT: 3
        1716224 Bytes Data
        
        DMF 2048 Maxed:
        -------------------------------------------
        Sectors Per Cluster: 4	Number of FATs: 1
        Max Root Entries: 64	Sectors Per FAT: 3
        1716224 Bytes Data
        
        Differences:
        -------------------------------------------
        0 Bytes More, 48 More Root Entries
        
        
        
        1.72MB Standard:
        82 Tracks		21 Sectors/Track
        3444 Sectors Total	1763328 Bytes Total
        -------------------------------------------
        Sectors Per Cluster: 1	Number of FATs: 2
        Max Root Entries: 224	Sectors Per FAT: 10
        1745408 Bytes Data
        
        1.72MB Maxed:
        -------------------------------------------
        Sectors Per Cluster: 4	Number of FATs: 1
        Max Root Entries: 64	Sectors Per FAT: 3
        1759232 Bytes Data
        
        Differences:
        -------------------------------------------
        13824 Bytes More, 160 Less Root Entries
        
        

        If you’re interested in the blank disk images themselves, let me know.

      • over_clox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Also, 1474560 / 1024 = 1440

        If anyone could keep up with binary numbers back in the day, floppy disks were literally measured in binary megabytes.

      • over_clox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        The floppy disk format is based on the FAT12 file system.

        https://www.cs.drexel.edu/~johnsojr/2012-13/fall/cs370/resources/UnderstandingFAT12.pdf

        And with enough creative tweaks to that file system, you can get DMF 1.68MB format, and if you think a bit outside the box and erase the redundant secondary FAT table and settle on a max of only 16 files on the disk, you can squeeze a few more kilobytes out of that even.

        I actually made a number of custom modded blank disk images with more storage space, I might dig out the full specs of all the variants later.

  • Korhaka@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Only time I can think of where the 32 of 1.32 could be said as thirty-two would be as a software version number

  • Andrzej3K [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    “One point three two”, because otherwise the question is ‘thirty two what’. Consider what happens if we put a zero on the end — does it become “one point three hundred and twenty” despite being exactly the same number?