Re: Datasheet-flation?

On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 23:35:11 +0100, Carlos E.R. 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)

When you deal with RF it's essential to have a scientific calculator that
can handle exponents like that. I continue to be amazed at the computing
power they're capable of for next to no money. In real terms they're a
fraction of the price they were when they first became available. The
first ever scientific calculator I ever had was an HP one. A friend had
the Sinclair one. Another had a Bowmar (they went bust around 1975 IIRC).
They were a quantum leap over what we used beforehand.