Re: Datasheet-flation?

On 12/2/24 19:44, Joe Gwinn wrote:

On Mon, 2 Dec 2024 19:06:28 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
 

On 12/2/24 18:17, Phil Hobbs wrote:

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
>

>
So it's you! Shame!
>
Jeroen Belleman (Tongue in cheek)

 So we need to standardize the world on 10^9.
 Joe

That at least is unambiguous, contrary to billions and trillions
which have become so confusing as to be useless. I still think using
1G is easier.
There is a wart on the SI system, where multiplier prefixes apply
to *both* the amount *and* the unit when the unit is a power of
a unit: 1mm^3 is in fact 10^-9 cubic meters. To make things worse,
this does not apply to liters, despite the fact that a liter
also has the dimension of a length cubed. To me, that feels just
wrong. It sometimes still confuses me. I'd have much preferred
that 1mm^3 equals 1n m^3. That is, the quantity is 1n and the unit
is m^3.
Jeroen Belleman