Re: Datasheet-flation?

Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

On 12/2/24 15:00, john larkin wrote:

On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 23:35:11 +0100, "Carlos E.R."
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>

On 2024-11-29 18:32, Jeroen Belleman wrote:

On 11/29/24 15:33, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 2024-11-29 15:22, Liz Tuddenham wrote:

Jasen Betts <usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org> wrote:
>

On 2024-11-24, Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:

Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
>
[...]

the English and American "billion" was
harmonised many years ago at one thousand million so there's no
confusion.

>
Can you give a reference for that?� I haven't found one.

>
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN04440/
SN04440.pdf

>
Thank you, that clarifies the situation.� The English Billion still
exists but in 1957 British Ministers were told to use the American
meaning as it was considered "International" by the then Prime Minister.
>
Obviously it cannot be completely international if there are still
countries using it to mean Bi-million nowadays.

>
And languages. Spanish, in Spain at least, a billion is a million
million. So one has to be careful when translating.
>

>
All this abundantly demonstrates that we're better off using the
metric prefixes instead. It'll be next to impossible to make
politicians and finance accept that though...

>
Right!
>
Or notations like 5*10^9  or 5E9 (calculators did this. Do they still
do? 5E9 is very simple)

>
10^9 = 1e10 in some places.
>

>
What??? Where?
>
Jeroen Belleman
>

 Occasionally when I want 10 to the nine, I type 10E9.
 Cheers
 Phil Hobbs