The data "sheet" for the new processor I'm using is ~16,000 pages.
(note carefully the position of the comma separator)
This is getting ridiculous. I thought 2,000 page datasheets were
over the top, but this one is a personal record! <frown>
On Sat, 23 Nov 2024 03:50:54 -0700, Don Y
<blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
The data "sheet" for the new processor I'm using is ~16,000 pages.
(note carefully the position of the comma separator)
This is getting ridiculous. I thought 2,000 page datasheets were
over the top, but this one is a personal record! <frown>
On the other hand, data sheet quality is generally going down.
On Sat, 23 Nov 2024 03:50:54 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
The data "sheet" for the new processor I'm using is ~16,000 pages.
(note carefully the position of the comma separator)
This is getting ridiculous. I thought 2,000 page datasheets were over
the top, but this one is a personal record! <frown>
On the other hand, data sheet quality is generally going down.
The data "sheet" for the new processor I'm using is ~16,000 pages.
(note carefully the position of the comma separator)
This is getting ridiculous. I thought 2,000 page datasheets were
over the top, but this one is a personal record! <frown>
On Sat, 23 Nov 2024 07:38:16 -0800, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 23 Nov 2024 03:50:54 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
wrote:
The data "sheet" for the new processor I'm using is ~16,000 pages.
(note carefully the position of the comma separator)
This is getting ridiculous. I thought 2,000 page datasheets were over >>>the top, but this one is a personal record! <frown>
On the other hand, data sheet quality is generally going down.
Not just datasheets, but app notes and textbooks as well. They were all
far, far clearer and better-written decades ago compared with today. I >suspect it's perhaps due to the schools not teaching formal English
grammar any more.
The data "sheet" for the new processor I'm using is ~16,000 pages.
(note carefully the position of the comma separator)
This is getting ridiculous. I thought 2,000 page datasheets were
over the top, but this one is a personal record! <frown>
Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
The data "sheet" for the new processor I'm using is ~16,000 pages.
(note carefully the position of the comma separator)
In my country people would ask why are you putting decimal
comma in a number that is supposed to be an integer?
Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
The data "sheet" for the new processor I'm using is ~16,000 pages.
(note carefully the position of the comma separator)
In my country people would ask why are you putting decimal
comma in a number that is supposed to be an integer?
Waldek Hebisch <antispam@fricas.org> wrote:
Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
The data "sheet" for the new processor I'm using is ~16,000 pages.
(note carefully the position of the comma separator)
In my country people would ask why are you putting decimal
comma in a number that is supposed to be an integer?
It's a convention used in banking and accountancy to divide the '0's
into groups of three and make them easier to count with less chance of
error. It is also used by newspapers and sometimes in ordinary >correspondence but very rarely in scientific communications, where the
10^x notation is preferred. The decimal divider in English is the
full-stop [American: "period"]
Also be aware that the term "Billion" means a million million
(Bi-million) in English but only a thousand million in American and
French.. Most English people seem ignorant of this and use it
incorrectly with the American meaning.
On Sat, 23 Nov 2024 03:50:54 -0700, Don Y
<blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
The data "sheet" for the new processor I'm using is ~16,000 pages.
(note carefully the position of the comma separator)
I suggest you switch to a RISC processor. Fewer instructions implies
that there might be fewer pages of documentation. Let's see if that
works.
The RISC-V instruction set manual is 238 PDF pages: <https://riscv.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/riscv-spec.pdf>
while the Intel 64 and IA-32 combined developer manual is 5,237 PDF
pages: <https://cdrdv2-public.intel.com/835781/325462-sdm-vol-1-2abcd-3abcd-4.pdf> Yep. More instructions means more pages.
This is getting ridiculous. I thought 2,000 page datasheets were
over the top, but this one is a personal record! <frown>
Nobody RTFM's the entire manual. You're not expected to read and
understand everything, just the part that is useful for whatever
you're doing.
I have numerous books where I've only read a few
relevant chapters, skimmed a few others, and ignored the rest. When
you lookup a telephone number in a telephone directory, do you read
the entire directory? Same with modern devices, which are often full
of features that you'll never need or use.
Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
The data "sheet" for the new processor I'm using is ~16,000 pages.
(note carefully the position of the comma separator)
In my country people would ask why are you putting decimal
comma in a number that is supposed to be an integer?
This is getting ridiculous. I thought 2,000 page datasheets were
over the top, but this one is a personal record! <frown>
Size depends on complexity of the processor, on what is included
(Chinese makers tends to have short datasheets which frequently
skip useful information) and style of presentation.
I recently feched
Intel datasheet giving essentually the instruction set, it is
more than 5000 pages.
Several STM datasheet for relatively simple
processors have more than 1000 pages.
Some STM datasheets contain
a lot of examples in C, that adds bulk. STM has general timer
design which can be specialized to remove various features.
Instead of describing general design and then specifying features
of each timer they have separate section for each compbination
of features present in a timer. This leads to significant
duplication, where bulk of a section is the same as section
for another timer, but some places differ.
IIRC have a datasheet with about 5000 pages. 16000 pages would
be reasonable if the processor contains a lot of features
and they want to describe it in depth.
Or could be just
mistuned text-generator which is spitting text based on some
templates and a database.
Waldek Hebisch <antispam@fricas.org> wrote:
Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
The data "sheet" for the new processor I'm using is ~16,000 pages.
(note carefully the position of the comma separator)
In my country people would ask why are you putting decimal
comma in a number that is supposed to be an integer?
It's a convention used in banking and accountancy to divide the '0's
into groups of three and make them easier to count with less chance of
error. It is also used by newspapers and sometimes in ordinary >correspondence but very rarely in scientific communications, where the
10^x notation is preferred. The decimal divider in English is the
full-stop [American: "period"]
Also be aware that the term "Billion" means a million million
(Bi-million) in English but only a thousand million in American and
French.. Most English people seem ignorant of this and use it
incorrectly with the American meaning.
On Sat, 23 Nov 2024 22:02:07 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Waldek Hebisch <antispam@fricas.org> wrote:
Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
The data "sheet" for the new processor I'm using is ~16,000 pages.
(note carefully the position of the comma separator)
In my country people would ask why are you putting decimal
comma in a number that is supposed to be an integer?
It's a convention used in banking and accountancy to divide the '0's
into groups of three and make them easier to count with less chance of
error. It is also used by newspapers and sometimes in ordinary
correspondence but very rarely in scientific communications, where the
10^x notation is preferred. The decimal divider in English is the
full-stop [American: "period"]
Also be aware that the term "Billion" means a million million
(Bi-million) in English but only a thousand million in American and
French.. Most English people seem ignorant of this and use it
incorrectly with the American meaning.
True. In IEEE computer standards such as 1003.1 (POSIX/Linux), the
word billion is not used, replaced by a thousand million. In related documents, I usually also say something like "billion (10^9)" to be
precise.
Joe Gwinn
Waldek Hebisch <antispam@fricas.org> wrote:
Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
The data "sheet" for the new processor I'm using is ~16,000 pages.
(note carefully the position of the comma separator)
In my country people would ask why are you putting decimal
comma in a number that is supposed to be an integer?
It's a convention used in banking and accountancy to divide the '0's
into groups of three and make them easier to count with less chance of
error. It is also used by newspapers and sometimes in ordinary correspondence but very rarely in scientific communications, where the
10^x notation is preferred. The decimal divider in English is the
full-stop [American: "period"]
Also be aware that the term "Billion" means a million million
(Bi-million) in English but only a thousand million in American and
French.. Most English people seem ignorant of this and use it
incorrectly with the American meaning.
On Sat, 23 Nov 2024 07:38:16 -0800, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 23 Nov 2024 03:50:54 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
wrote:
The data "sheet" for the new processor I'm using is ~16,000 pages.
(note carefully the position of the comma separator)
This is getting ridiculous. I thought 2,000 page datasheets were over
the top, but this one is a personal record! <frown>
On the other hand, data sheet quality is generally going down.
Not just datasheets, but app notes and textbooks as well. They were all
far, far clearer and better-written decades ago compared with today. I suspect it's perhaps due to the schools not teaching formal English
grammar any more.
Waldek Hebisch <antispam@fricas.org> wrote:
In my country people would ask why are you putting decimal
comma in a number that is supposed to be an integer?
It's a convention used in banking and accountancy to divide the '0's
into groups of three and make them easier to count with less chance of
error. It is also used by newspapers and sometimes in ordinary correspondence but very rarely in scientific communications, where the
10^x notation is preferred. The decimal divider in English is the
full-stop [American: "period"]
Also be aware that the term "Billion" means a million million
(Bi-million) in English but only a thousand million in American and
French..
Most English people seem ignorant of this and use it
incorrectly with the American meaning.
Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
Also be aware that the term "Billion" means a million million
(Bi-million) in English but only a thousand million in American and
French..
.. where it is a "milliard"
The Milliard is English for a thousand million, which Americans call a "Billion".
Logically the English runs:
10^3 Thousand
10^6 Million
10^9 Milliard
10^12 Billion (bi-million)
10^15 Billiard (yes, really ! )
10^18 Trillion (tri-million)
10^18 Trilliard ....etc.
Also be aware that the term "Billion" means a million million
(Bi-million) in English but only a thousand million in American and French..
.. where it is a "milliard"
Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
Also be aware that the term "Billion" means a million million
(Bi-million) in English but only a thousand million in American and
French..
.. where it is a "milliard"
The Milliard is English for a thousand million, which Americans call a >"Billion".
Logically the English runs:
10^3 Thousand
10^6 Million
10^9 Milliard
10^12 Billion (bi-million)
10^15 Billiard (yes, really ! )
10^18 Trillion (tri-million)
10^18 Trilliard ....etc.
On Sat, 23 Nov 2024 19:05:36 -0000 (UTC), antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) wrote:
Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
The data "sheet" for the new processor I'm using is ~16,000 pages.
(note carefully the position of the comma separator)
In my country people would ask why are you putting decimal
comma in a number that is supposed to be an integer?
Are there any English-speaking countries that show an integer as
123.456.789 ?
On 11/23/2024 12:05 PM, Waldek Hebisch wrote:
Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
The data "sheet" for the new processor I'm using is ~16,000 pages.
(note carefully the position of the comma separator)
In my country people would ask why are you putting decimal
comma in a number that is supposed to be an integer?
I18N/L10N. In the US, there are many conventions for the presentation
of numeric values.
Magnitudes greater thatn 10^3 *can* be separated into triads of
digits (right justified) using the comma as a separator.
1,000; 1,000,000; 1,000,000,000; etc. For four digit values,
the separator is often omitted.
Years, in dates, are never represented with a comma: 2024, 1999, etc.
Numeric street addresses are also not so punctuated. 2981, 10322, etc. >(additionally, street addresses are referenced as "hundreds" -- the
last of those would be spoken as "hundred and three hundred")
On Sun, 24 Nov 2024 11:30:34 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
Also be aware that the term "Billion" means a million million
(Bi-million) in English but only a thousand million in American and
French..
.. where it is a "milliard"
The Milliard is English for a thousand million, which Americans call a >"Billion".
Logically the English runs:
10^3 Thousand
10^6 Million
10^9 Milliard
No, that's a duck.
john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
On Sun, 24 Nov 2024 11:30:34 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
Also be aware that the term "Billion" means a million million
(Bi-million) in English but only a thousand million in American and
French..
.. where it is a "milliard"
The Milliard is English for a thousand million, which Americans call a
"Billion".
Logically the English runs:
10^3 Thousand
10^6 Million
10^9 Milliard
No, that's a duck.
What goes "Quick! Quick!" ?
|
|
|
|
|
A duck with hiccups.
(It will soon be Christmas cracker time.)
john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
On Sat, 23 Nov 2024 19:05:36 -0000 (UTC), antispam@fricas.org (Waldek
Hebisch) wrote:
Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
The data "sheet" for the new processor I'm using is ~16,000 pages.
(note carefully the position of the comma separator)
In my country people would ask why are you putting decimal
comma in a number that is supposed to be an integer?
Are there any English-speaking countries that show an integer as
123.456.789 ?
AFAIK in my country (Poland) this is an official format. But I
do not remember seeing it in real life. I an not saying that
I newer saw it, simply if I saw it it was rare enough that I
do not remember.
This is an international place, and assumption that people who
read it speak English is unwarranted. There are folks that
manage to read and write something resembling English but
they can not speak it. However, the point is that writing
commas in numbers invites confusion (commas are too overloaded),
especially since 16 looks like much more likely number.
BTW: When needing to speparate digits I normally use underscores.
That seem to minimize chance of confusion.
On 11/24/2024 4:30 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
Also be aware that the term "Billion" means a million million
(Bi-million) in English but only a thousand million in American and
French..
.. where it is a "milliard"
The Milliard is English for a thousand million, which Americans call a
"Billion".
Ah! I thought it was *french*!
Logically the English runs:
10^3 Thousand 10^6 Million 10^9 Milliard 10^12 Billion
(bi-million)
10^15 Billiard (yes, really ! )
10^18 Trillion (tri-million)
10^18 Trilliard ....etc.
Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
Also be aware that the term "Billion" means a million million
(Bi-million) in English but only a thousand million in American and
French..
.. where it is a "milliard"
The Milliard is English for a thousand million, which Americans call a >"Billion".
Logically the English runs:
10^3 Thousand
10^6 Million
10^9 Milliard
10^12 Billion (bi-million)
10^15 Billiard (yes, really ! )
10^18 Trillion (tri-million)
10^18 Trilliard ....etc.
the English and American "billion" was
harmonised many years ago at one thousand million so there's no confusion.
On Sun, 24 Nov 2024 17:25:43 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
On Sun, 24 Nov 2024 11:30:34 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
Also be aware that the term "Billion" means a million million
(Bi-million) in English but only a thousand million in American and >>>>>> French..
.. where it is a "milliard"
The Milliard is English for a thousand million, which Americans call a >>>> "Billion".
Logically the English runs:
10^3 Thousand
10^6 Million
10^9 Milliard
No, that's a duck.
What goes "Quick! Quick!" ?
|
|
|
|
|
A duck with hiccups.
(It will soon be Christmas cracker time.)
Wonderful birds. It's unfortunate that they taste so good.
On 11/24/24 18:37, john larkin wrote:[...]
Wonderful birds. It's unfortunate that they taste so good.
That may be what will save them. Animals that taste good
don't go extinct.
On 11/24/24 18:37, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 24 Nov 2024 17:25:43 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
On Sun, 24 Nov 2024 11:30:34 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
Also be aware that the term "Billion" means a million million
(Bi-million) in English but only a thousand million in American and >>>>>>> French..
.. where it is a "milliard"
The Milliard is English for a thousand million, which Americans call a >>>>> "Billion".
Logically the English runs:
10^3 Thousand
10^6 Million
10^9 Milliard
No, that's a duck.
What goes "Quick! Quick!" ?
|
|
|
|
|
A duck with hiccups.
(It will soon be Christmas cracker time.)
Wonderful birds. It's unfortunate that they taste so good.
That may be what will save them. Animals that taste good
don't go extinct. But what a destiny...
Jeroen Belleman
On Sun, 24 Nov 2024 20:25:59 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 11/24/24 18:37, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 24 Nov 2024 17:25:43 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
On Sun, 24 Nov 2024 11:30:34 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid >>>>> (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
Also be aware that the term "Billion" means a million million
(Bi-million) in English but only a thousand million in American and >>>>>>>> French..
.. where it is a "milliard"
The Milliard is English for a thousand million, which Americans call a >>>>>> "Billion".
Logically the English runs:
10^3 Thousand
10^6 Million
10^9 Milliard
No, that's a duck.
What goes "Quick! Quick!" ?
|
|
|
|
|
A duck with hiccups.
(It will soon be Christmas cracker time.)
Wonderful birds. It's unfortunate that they taste so good.
That may be what will save them. Animals that taste good
don't go extinct. But what a destiny...
Jeroen Belleman
I wonder if any animals have evolved to taste bad. Or be outright
poisonous.
Plants do that.
On 11/23/24 23:31, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On Sat, 23 Nov 2024 22:02:07 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Waldek Hebisch <antispam@fricas.org> wrote:
Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
The data "sheet" for the new processor I'm using is ~16,000 pages.
(note carefully the position of the comma separator)
In my country people would ask why are you putting decimal
comma in a number that is supposed to be an integer?
It's a convention used in banking and accountancy to divide the '0's
into groups of three and make them easier to count with less chance of
error. It is also used by newspapers and sometimes in ordinary
correspondence but very rarely in scientific communications, where the
10^x notation is preferred. The decimal divider in English is the
full-stop [American: "period"]
Also be aware that the term "Billion" means a million million
(Bi-million) in English but only a thousand million in American and
French.. Most English people seem ignorant of this and use it
incorrectly with the American meaning.
True. In IEEE computer standards such as 1003.1 (POSIX/Linux), the
word billion is not used, replaced by a thousand million. In related
documents, I usually also say something like "billion (10^9)" to be
precise.
Joe Gwinn
I'd use metric prefixes. So 10^9 is 1G and 10^12 is 1T. I even
wrote a desktop calculator program styled after Unix's 'dc' that
uses that notation.
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.
On Sun, 24 Nov 2024 16:03:21 -0000 (UTC), antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) wrote:
john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
On Sat, 23 Nov 2024 19:05:36 -0000 (UTC), antispam@fricas.org (Waldek
Hebisch) wrote:
Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
The data "sheet" for the new processor I'm using is ~16,000 pages.
(note carefully the position of the comma separator)
In my country people would ask why are you putting decimal
comma in a number that is supposed to be an integer?
Are there any English-speaking countries that show an integer as
123.456.789 ?
AFAIK in my country (Poland) this is an official format. But I
do not remember seeing it in real life. I an not saying that
I newer saw it, simply if I saw it it was rare enough that I
do not remember.
This is an international place, and assumption that people who
read it speak English is unwarranted. There are folks that
manage to read and write something resembling English but
they can not speak it. However, the point is that writing
commas in numbers invites confusion (commas are too overloaded),
especially since 16 looks like much more likely number.
BTW: When needing to speparate digits I normally use underscores.
That seem to minimize chance of confusion.
If you design electronics in Poland, you are pretty much stuck with
having to read datasheets in American English.
I wonder if anything like Google Translate can make sensible
translations of data sheets.
Do people in Poland code processors or FPGAs in Polish? I suspect not.
On Sun, 24 Nov 2024 16:03:21 -0000 (UTC), antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) wrote:
john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
On Sat, 23 Nov 2024 19:05:36 -0000 (UTC), antispam@fricas.org (Waldek
Hebisch) wrote:
Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
The data "sheet" for the new processor I'm using is ~16,000 pages.
(note carefully the position of the comma separator)
In my country people would ask why are you putting decimal
comma in a number that is supposed to be an integer?
Are there any English-speaking countries that show an integer as
123.456.789 ?
AFAIK in my country (Poland) this is an official format. But I
do not remember seeing it in real life. I an not saying that
I newer saw it, simply if I saw it it was rare enough that I
do not remember.
This is an international place, and assumption that people who
read it speak English is unwarranted. There are folks that
manage to read and write something resembling English but
they can not speak it. However, the point is that writing
commas in numbers invites confusion (commas are too overloaded),
especially since 16 looks like much more likely number.
BTW: When needing to speparate digits I normally use underscores.
That seem to minimize chance of confusion.
If you design electronics in Poland, you are pretty much stuck with
having to read datasheets in American English.
I wonder if anything like Google Translate can make sensible
translations of data sheets.
Do people in Poland code processors or FPGAs in Polish? I suspect not.
Does LT Spice have language versions?
I think the world is trending towards AE as a universal second
language.
We use a mixed language (Spain).
If you use software like Libre Office spreadsheets, numbers are automatically printed in the local style, unless you specify to use some other locale, say British. But then you get other problems, like wrong spelling, or wrong monetary unit. You might choose a customized locale so that only numbers are USA style, but then it might print dollars instead of euros...
It is not that simple.
On another era, when we started to use calculators, we started to use the dot for decimals, instead of the comma. This was a problem with strict teachers.
Then you have cash registers...
Oh, programming language. Some decades ago, Telefónica had the software translated. The commands of the Lucent machine (5ESSS) were in Spanish. That must have been really expensive to do.
On Sun, 24 Nov 2024 18:22:22 +0000, Liz Tuddenham 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.
Try this: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/articles/questions/why-are-uk-and- american-billions-different
On 11/24/2024 7:41 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
We use a mixed language (Spain).
I thought there were *several*. Or, are these "nonofficial"
or simply treated as dialects?
On 11/24/24 22:43, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 24 Nov 2024 20:25:59 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
Logically the English runs:
10^3Â Â Thousand
10^6Â Â Million
10^9Â Â Milliard
No, that's a duck.
What goes "Quick! Quick!" ?
|
|
|
|
|
A duck with hiccups.
(It will soon be Christmas cracker time.)
Wonderful birds. It's unfortunate that they taste so good.
That may be what will save them. Animals that taste good
don't go extinct. But what a destiny...
Jeroen Belleman
I wonder if any animals have evolved to taste bad. Or be outright
poisonous.
Plants do that.
Some frogs and insects.
On 2024-11-25 04:19, Don Y wrote:
On 11/24/2024 7:41 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
We use a mixed language (Spain).
I thought there were *several*. Or, are these "nonofficial"
or simply treated as dialects?
True, there are several (each one official in their regions,
and Spanish in
all), but the point I live at it is only Spanish. Other regions are bilingual;
but if they are programmers they probably use a mixture of English and the local language. Documentation is often in English, and even when not, the most
recent version of the docs is in English usually. Unless the software you are using originated in non English country.
john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
On Sun, 24 Nov 2024 16:03:21 -0000 (UTC), antispam@fricas.org (Waldek
Hebisch) wrote:
john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
On Sat, 23 Nov 2024 19:05:36 -0000 (UTC), antispam@fricas.org (Waldek
Hebisch) wrote:
Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
The data "sheet" for the new processor I'm using is ~16,000 pages. >>>>>> (note carefully the position of the comma separator)
In my country people would ask why are you putting decimal
comma in a number that is supposed to be an integer?
Are there any English-speaking countries that show an integer as
123.456.789 ?
AFAIK in my country (Poland) this is an official format. But I
do not remember seeing it in real life. I an not saying that
I newer saw it, simply if I saw it it was rare enough that I
do not remember.
This is an international place, and assumption that people who
read it speak English is unwarranted. There are folks that
manage to read and write something resembling English but
they can not speak it. However, the point is that writing
commas in numbers invites confusion (commas are too overloaded), >>>especially since 16 looks like much more likely number.
BTW: When needing to speparate digits I normally use underscores.
That seem to minimize chance of confusion.
If you design electronics in Poland, you are pretty much stuck with
having to read datasheets in American English.
Yes. But they are technical documents that make at least some
attempt to clarity (possibly limited to avoiding commas in
numbers).
I wonder if anything like Google Translate can make sensible
translations of data sheets.
I saw result from translating a chinese datasheet, did not look
nice, but one could get from it useful info.
Do people in Poland code processors or FPGAs in Polish? I suspect not.
I suspect that some do. Not when there is international cooperation
or they want to sell code. Of course syntax is standard but
comments and variable names may be in Polish.
On 2024-11-24 23:08, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
On 11/24/24 22:43, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 24 Nov 2024 20:25:59 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
Logically the English runs:
10^3 Thousand
10^6 Million
10^9 Milliard
No, that's a duck.
What goes "Quick! Quick!" ?
|
|
|
|
|
A duck with hiccups.
(It will soon be Christmas cracker time.)
Wonderful birds. It's unfortunate that they taste so good.
That may be what will save them. Animals that taste good
don't go extinct. But what a destiny...
Jeroen Belleman
I wonder if any animals have evolved to taste bad. Or be outright
poisonous.
Plants do that.
Some frogs and insects.
A fish, that is a delicatessen in Japan, is deadly poisonous. Fugu, I
think it is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugu
Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 24 Nov 2024 18:22:22 +0000, Liz Tuddenham 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.
Try this:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/articles/questions/why-are-uk-and-
american-billions-different
It just repeats the myth but doesn't give a reference.
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 10:21:56 +0000, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 24 Nov 2024 18:22:22 +0000, Liz Tuddenham 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.
Try this:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/articles/questions/why-are-uk-and-
american-billions-different
It just repeats the myth but doesn't give a reference.
It's not a myth. UK and US billions have been harmonized at 1,000,000,000
for as long as I can remember now. As I recall, it was just done simply
via adoption rather than any Act of Parliament or Statutory Instrument.
IIRC, I think the pressure to do so came from the finance industry.
On 11/25/2024 5:08 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2024-11-25 04:19, Don Y wrote:
On 11/24/2024 7:41 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
We use a mixed language (Spain).
I thought there were *several*. Or, are these "nonofficial"
or simply treated as dialects?
True, there are several (each one official in their regions,
Really? That level of recognition? Not just "tolerated" as a local version?
E.g., if you went to a gummit agency in Region A to apply for a service, license, etc. and, some time later, moved to another region -- B. Would
you have to interact with those officials in the official language
of that new region?
[ISTR Quebec requires the use of French in all official transactions?]
I.e., do regions fiercely defend their "personalities" and make an
effort to coerce such use? Or, is it just a formality that is
often overlooked?
E.g., here (US), certain official documents (like ballots) must be offered
in specific languages to address the needs of those constituents. And, as they are "official", there can be little room for translation errors/
By contrast, if you spoke Castilian Spanish to a Mexican, here, they
likely (?) would understand your meaning. In a formal (court-of-law) setting, they may be able to lean on technicalities of differences
beyond pronunciation characteristics (e.g., cerveza)
and Spanish in all), but the point I live at it is only Spanish. Other
regions are bilingual;
And, presumably, there, people are "fluent" in each?
but if they are programmers they probably use a mixture of English and
the local language. Documentation is often in English, and even when
not, the most recent version of the docs is in English usually. Unless
the software you are using originated in non English country.
I've seen software internals that contained a lot of non-english.
Choices of variable names, ("what the hell is a 'puntero'?"),
blocks of commentary to explain the function's purpose, etc. Some
of these things are easy to just "accept" -- after all, an identifier
is just a collection of characters used as a symbolic reference.
But, it has an amazing impact (to the detriment) on comprehension!
Instead of trying to understand the code, you are trying to understand
the actual *words*!
It made me wonder how folks with other native tongues can adapt to
the prevalence of English in such uses! And, how that affects their
code...
but if they are programmers they probably use a mixture of English and the >>> local language. Documentation is often in English, and even when not, the >>> most recent version of the docs is in English usually. Unless the software >>> you are using originated in non English country.
I've seen software internals that contained a lot of non-english.
Choices of variable names, ("what the hell is a 'puntero'?"),
blocks of commentary to explain the function's purpose, etc. Some
of these things are easy to just "accept" -- after all, an identifier
is just a collection of characters used as a symbolic reference.
But, it has an amazing impact (to the detriment) on comprehension!
Instead of trying to understand the code, you are trying to understand
the actual *words*!
It made me wonder how folks with other native tongues can adapt to
the prevalence of English in such uses! And, how that affects their
code...
My own code can be in Spanglish :-p
Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 10:21:56 +0000, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 24 Nov 2024 18:22:22 +0000, Liz Tuddenham 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.
Try this:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/articles/questions/why-are-uk-and-
american-billions-different
It just repeats the myth but doesn't give a reference.
It's not a myth. UK and US billions have been harmonized at 1,000,000,000
for as long as I can remember now. As I recall, it was just done simply
via adoption rather than any Act of Parliament or Statutory Instrument.
IIRC, I think the pressure to do so came from the finance industry.
Do you have a reference that isn't just heresay?
On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 07:51:04 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalidand-
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 10:21:56 +0000, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 24 Nov 2024 18:22:22 +0000, Liz Tuddenham 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.
Try this:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/articles/questions/why-are-uk-
american-billions-different
It just repeats the myth but doesn't give a reference.
It's not a myth. UK and US billions have been harmonized at
1,000,000,000 for as long as I can remember now. As I recall, it was
just done simply via adoption rather than any Act of Parliament or
Statutory Instrument. IIRC, I think the pressure to do so came from
the finance industry.
Do you have a reference that isn't just heresay?
You can go to BBC.com and search for stories with "billions". They
obviously mean 1e9.
On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 07:51:04 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 10:21:56 +0000, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 24 Nov 2024 18:22:22 +0000, Liz Tuddenham 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.
Try this:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/articles/questions/why-are-uk-and- >> >> american-billions-different
It just repeats the myth but doesn't give a reference.
It's not a myth. UK and US billions have been harmonized at 1,000,000,000 >> for as long as I can remember now. As I recall, it was just done simply
via adoption rather than any Act of Parliament or Statutory Instrument.
IIRC, I think the pressure to do so came from the finance industry.
Do you have a reference that isn't just heresay?
You can go to BBC.com and search for stories with "billions". They
obviously mean 1e9.
john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 07:51:04 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 10:21:56 +0000, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 24 Nov 2024 18:22:22 +0000, Liz Tuddenham 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.
Try this:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/articles/questions/why-are-uk-and- >> >> >> american-billions-different
It just repeats the myth but doesn't give a reference.
It's not a myth. UK and US billions have been harmonized at 1,000,000,000 >> >> for as long as I can remember now. As I recall, it was just done simply >> >> via adoption rather than any Act of Parliament or Statutory Instrument. >> >> IIRC, I think the pressure to do so came from the finance industry.
Do you have a reference that isn't just heresay?
You can go to BBC.com and search for stories with "billions". They
obviously mean 1e9.
That is not evidence that the two have been harmonised, it just shows
that BBC journalists have adopted American terminology.
To harmonise two systems requires formal discussion, decision and >documentation and neither you nor I have found any evidence of that.
On 11/26/2024 6:07 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
but if they are programmers they probably use a mixture of English
and the local language. Documentation is often in English, and even
when not, the most recent version of the docs is in English usually.
Unless the software you are using originated in non English country.
I've seen software internals that contained a lot of non-english.
Choices of variable names, ("what the hell is a 'puntero'?"),
blocks of commentary to explain the function's purpose, etc. Some
of these things are easy to just "accept" -- after all, an identifier
is just a collection of characters used as a symbolic reference.
But, it has an amazing impact (to the detriment) on comprehension!
Instead of trying to understand the code, you are trying to understand
the actual *words*!
It made me wonder how folks with other native tongues can adapt to
the prevalence of English in such uses! And, how that affects their
code...
My own code can be in Spanglish :-p
But, presumably, in business settings, there are some standards that
firms adopt. So, english proficiency is an unintended prerequisite?
I can see learning to recognize:
pendant-que( quelque-chose ) {
   blah
}
as a particular control structure -- treating the words as just
abstract symbols instead of knowing their proper translations.
But, variable names and function names for imported libraries
seem to NEED a translation to be meaningful.
I can't imagine an english language developer GUESSING what
"crée(3C)" would mean!
On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 22:27:12 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 07:51:04 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 10:21:56 +0000, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 24 Nov 2024 18:22:22 +0000, Liz Tuddenham 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.
Try this:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/articles/questions/why-are-uk-and- >>>>>>> american-billions-different
It just repeats the myth but doesn't give a reference.
It's not a myth. UK and US billions have been harmonized at 1,000,000,000 >>>>> for as long as I can remember now. As I recall, it was just done simply >>>>> via adoption rather than any Act of Parliament or Statutory Instrument. >>>>> IIRC, I think the pressure to do so came from the finance industry.
Do you have a reference that isn't just heresay?
You can go to BBC.com and search for stories with "billions". They
obviously mean 1e9.
That is not evidence that the two have been harmonised, it just shows
that BBC journalists have adopted American terminology.
To harmonise two systems requires formal discussion, decision and
documentation and neither you nor I have found any evidence of that.
Sometimes the people win.
Back on the original subject a bit: it's not just huge data sheets
which can be... well, less than wonderful. I invite you to take a
look at the sheet for the Skyworks SKY65050-372LF low noise
transistor. The evaluation board schematic on page 8, and its
associated bill of materials, invite careful examination.
The fact that they went to the trouble of actually _saying_ that
the schematic diagram is a mess, rather than actually fixing it...
well, I assume this was a Management decision. I think I'd
have been ashamed to be the Engineer, though.
My own code can be in Spanglish :-p
But, presumably, in business settings, there are some standards that
firms adopt. So, english proficiency is an unintended prerequisite?
It depends on the programming language used (its documentation), that of the libraries, and the company culture.
Methinks that at least reading some English is necessary.
john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:and-
On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 07:51:04 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 10:21:56 +0000, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 24 Nov 2024 18:22:22 +0000, Liz Tuddenham 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.
Try this:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/articles/questions/why-are-uk-
american-billions-different
It just repeats the myth but doesn't give a reference.
It's not a myth. UK and US billions have been harmonized at
1,000,000,000 for as long as I can remember now. As I recall, it was
just done simply via adoption rather than any Act of Parliament or
Statutory Instrument. IIRC, I think the pressure to do so came from
the finance industry.
Do you have a reference that isn't just heresay?
You can go to BBC.com and search for stories with "billions". They
obviously mean 1e9.
That is not evidence that the two have been harmonised, it just shows
that BBC journalists have adopted American terminology.
To harmonise two systems requires formal discussion, decision and documentation and neither you nor I have found any evidence of that.
Back on the original subject a bit: it's not just huge data sheets
which can be... well, less than wonderful. I invite you to take a
look at the sheet for the Skyworks SKY65050-372LF low noise
transistor. The evaluation board schematic on page 8, and its
associated bill of materials, invite careful examination.
The fact that they went to the trouble of actually _saying_ that
the schematic diagram is a mess, rather than actually fixing it...
well, I assume this was a Management decision. I think I'd
have been ashamed to be the Engineer, though.
On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 22:27:12 +0000, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 07:51:04 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 10:21:56 +0000, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 24 Nov 2024 18:22:22 +0000, Liz Tuddenham 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.
Try this:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/articles/questions/why-are-uk- and-
american-billions-different
It just repeats the myth but doesn't give a reference.
It's not a myth. UK and US billions have been harmonized at
1,000,000,000 for as long as I can remember now. As I recall, it was
just done simply via adoption rather than any Act of Parliament or
Statutory Instrument. IIRC, I think the pressure to do so came from
the finance industry.
Do you have a reference that isn't just heresay?
You can go to BBC.com and search for stories with "billions". They
obviously mean 1e9.
That is not evidence that the two have been harmonised, it just shows
that BBC journalists have adopted American terminology.
To harmonise two systems requires formal discussion, decision and documentation and neither you nor I have found any evidence of that.
Fine believe whatever delusions you want to believe but it doesn't change
the fact that a UK billion today is one thousand million. Period.
On 11/26/2024 4:26 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
My own code can be in Spanglish :-p
But, presumably, in business settings, there are some standards that
firms adopt. So, english proficiency is an unintended prerequisite?
It depends on the programming language used (its documentation), that
of the libraries, and the company culture.
Methinks that at least reading some English is necessary.
Do *you* "write for yourself" or "write for others"?
I.e., do you write assuming YOU are the Reader? Or, that
OTHERS will be the Reader?
[There seems to be a split on how developers write; I think
this would affect their choice of (spoken) languages as well.]
Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 22:27:12 +0000, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 07:51:04 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 10:21:56 +0000, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 24 Nov 2024 18:22:22 +0000, Liz Tuddenham 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.
Try this:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/articles/questions/why-are-uk- >> and-
american-billions-different
It just repeats the myth but doesn't give a reference.
It's not a myth. UK and US billions have been harmonized at
1,000,000,000 for as long as I can remember now. As I recall, it was >> >> >> just done simply via adoption rather than any Act of Parliament or
Statutory Instrument. IIRC, I think the pressure to do so came from
the finance industry.
Do you have a reference that isn't just heresay?
You can go to BBC.com and search for stories with "billions". They
obviously mean 1e9.
That is not evidence that the two have been harmonised, it just shows
that BBC journalists have adopted American terminology.
To harmonise two systems requires formal discussion, decision and
documentation and neither you nor I have found any evidence of that.
Fine believe whatever delusions you want to believe but it doesn't change
the fact that a UK billion today is one thousand million. Period.
You have still produced no no proof for your original assertion that the
UK billion has been harmonised with the US billion, which was the point
in question. Common misusage does not alter the facts.
Gas is not stored in Gasometers.
UK pylons do not carry a current of 132,000 volts.
The "Morse Code" was not invented by Morse.
...the fact that most people, including journalists at the BBC, get it
wrong doesn't make it right..
The data "sheet" for the new processor I'm using is ~16,000 pages.
(note carefully the position of the comma separator)
This is getting ridiculous. I thought 2,000 page datasheets were
over the top, but this one is a personal record! <frown>
On Thu, 28 Nov 2024 10:36:08 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalidare-uk-
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 22:27:12 +0000, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 07:51:04 +0000,
liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 10:21:56 +0000, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 24 Nov 2024 18:22:22 +0000, Liz Tuddenham 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.
Try this:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/articles/questions/why-
and-
american-billions-different
It just repeats the myth but doesn't give a reference.
It's not a myth. UK and US billions have been harmonized at
1,000,000,000 for as long as I can remember now. As I recall, it
was just done simply via adoption rather than any Act of
Parliament or Statutory Instrument. IIRC, I think the pressure
to do so came from the finance industry.
Do you have a reference that isn't just heresay?
You can go to BBC.com and search for stories with "billions". They
obviously mean 1e9.
That is not evidence that the two have been harmonised, it just
shows that BBC journalists have adopted American terminology.
To harmonise two systems requires formal discussion, decision and
documentation and neither you nor I have found any evidence of that.
Fine believe whatever delusions you want to believe but it doesn't
change the fact that a UK billion today is one thousand million.
Period.
You have still produced no no proof for your original assertion that the
UK billion has been harmonised with the US billion, which was the point
in question. Common misusage does not alter the facts.
Gas is not stored in Gasometers.
UK pylons do not carry a current of 132,000 volts.
The "Morse Code" was not invented by Morse.
...the fact that most people, including journalists at the BBC, get it >>wrong doesn't make it right..
Who gets to decide "right"?
If I carry a check into a British bank and it says "one billion pounds",
how much will they pay me?
Back on the original subject a bit: it's not just huge data sheets
which can be... well, less than wonderful. I invite you to take a
look at the sheet for the Skyworks SKY65050-372LF low noise
transistor. The evaluation board schematic on page 8, and its
associated bill of materials, invite careful examination.
The fact that they went to the trouble of actually _saying_ that
the schematic diagram is a mess, rather than actually fixing it...
well, I assume this was a Management decision. I think I'd
have been ashamed to be the Engineer, though.
On 11/26/2024 10:21 PM, Dave Platt wrote:
Back on the original subject a bit: it's not just huge data sheets
which can be... well, less than wonderful. I invite you to take a
look at the sheet for the Skyworks SKY65050-372LF low noise
transistor. The evaluation board schematic on page 8, and its
associated bill of materials, invite careful examination.
The fact that they went to the trouble of actually _saying_ that
the schematic diagram is a mess, rather than actually fixing it...
well, I assume this was a Management decision. I think I'd
have been ashamed to be the Engineer, though.
It seems that the block diagram on page 1 may establish
the caliber of the documentation. :-(
(What's the emoticon for hold your nose?)
Ed
On Thu, 28 Nov 2024 07:22:01 -0800, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 28 Nov 2024 10:36:08 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 22:27:12 +0000, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:and-
On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 07:51:04 +0000,
liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 10:21:56 +0000, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 24 Nov 2024 18:22:22 +0000, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
[...]
the English and American "billion" was harmonised manyCan you give a reference for that? I haven't found one.
years ago at one thousand million so there's no confusion. >>>> >> >> >> >
Try this:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/articles/questions/why- >are-uk-
Fine believe whatever delusions you want to believe but it doesn'tamerican-billions-different
It just repeats the myth but doesn't give a reference.
It's not a myth. UK and US billions have been harmonized at
1,000,000,000 for as long as I can remember now. As I recall, it >>>> >> >> was just done simply via adoption rather than any Act of
Parliament or Statutory Instrument. IIRC, I think the pressure
to do so came from the finance industry.
Do you have a reference that isn't just heresay?
You can go to BBC.com and search for stories with "billions". They
obviously mean 1e9.
That is not evidence that the two have been harmonised, it just
shows that BBC journalists have adopted American terminology.
To harmonise two systems requires formal discussion, decision and
documentation and neither you nor I have found any evidence of that. >>>>
change the fact that a UK billion today is one thousand million.
Period.
You have still produced no no proof for your original assertion that the >>>UK billion has been harmonised with the US billion, which was the point >>>in question. Common misusage does not alter the facts.
I'm not obliged to provide you with *anything*. The fact that I informed
you what a billion is today was a courtesy extended to you by my infinite >patience as a decent human being.
Gas is not stored in Gasometers.
UK pylons do not carry a current of 132,000 volts.
The "Morse Code" was not invented by Morse.
...the fact that most people, including journalists at the BBC, get it >>>wrong doesn't make it right..
Who gets to decide "right"?
If I carry a check into a British bank and it says "one billion pounds",
how much will they pay me?
Nothing. You'll bankrupt it. :-)
On Thu, 28 Nov 2024 18:22:03 -0500, ehsjr <ehsjr@verizon.net> wrote:
On 11/26/2024 10:21 PM, Dave Platt wrote:
Back on the original subject a bit: it's not just huge data sheets
which can be... well, less than wonderful. I invite you to take a
look at the sheet for the Skyworks SKY65050-372LF low noise
transistor. The evaluation board schematic on page 8, and its
associated bill of materials, invite careful examination.
The fact that they went to the trouble of actually _saying_ that
the schematic diagram is a mess, rather than actually fixing it...
well, I assume this was a Management decision. I think I'd
have been ashamed to be the Engineer, though.
It seems that the block diagram on page 1 may establish
the caliber of the documentation. :-(
(What's the emoticon for hold your nose?)
Ed
It's not even a block.
The RF geeks like to call fet pins RF_IN and RF_OUT and RF_COM,
whereas normal people say gate, drain, source. Maybe compromise on
SOME and MORE and NONE.
And their biasing algorithm is usually "turn the pot until it works."
I use $100 RF switches and PHEMTs and MMICs and $300 distributed amp
chips in time domain, to make pulses. The data sheets are pretty much
useless to me. You never know if a part will actually work under 100
MHz (some won't) , or if that's as low as their VNA will go.
Mini-Circuits has assured me that they have no interest in amplifying
pulses and will never have Spice models for their parts.
I wonder if Q-spice is intended to bring RF design into the 20th
Century. It's the 21st already so it's overdue.
We had to add a DC block here, and it didn't help that some of the RF
parts were poorly specified.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/3j1eyfu850n5bb3xwlx10/DC_Block.jpg?rlkey=055ej3zuo5siukis8q0aaj8ft&raw=1
Do *you* "write for yourself" or "write for others"?
I.e., do you write assuming YOU are the Reader? Or, that
OTHERS will be the Reader?
[There seems to be a split on how developers write; I think
this would affect their choice of (spoken) languages as well.]
Ah. If I write a script I tend to mix English and Spanish. I tend to use English thinking of sharing the script or asking questions about it. The places
where I do that are English speaking mostly.
On Thu, 28 Nov 2024 07:22:01 -0800, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 28 Nov 2024 10:36:08 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 22:27:12 +0000, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:and-
On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 07:51:04 +0000,
liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 10:21:56 +0000, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 24 Nov 2024 18:22:22 +0000, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
[...]
the English and American "billion" was harmonised manyCan you give a reference for that? I haven't found one.
years ago at one thousand million so there's no confusion. >>> >> >> >> >
Try this:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/articles/questions/why- are-uk-
Fine believe whatever delusions you want to believe but it doesn'tamerican-billions-different
It just repeats the myth but doesn't give a reference.
It's not a myth. UK and US billions have been harmonized at
1,000,000,000 for as long as I can remember now. As I recall, it >>> >> >> was just done simply via adoption rather than any Act of
Parliament or Statutory Instrument. IIRC, I think the pressure
to do so came from the finance industry.
Do you have a reference that isn't just heresay?
You can go to BBC.com and search for stories with "billions". They
obviously mean 1e9.
That is not evidence that the two have been harmonised, it just
shows that BBC journalists have adopted American terminology.
To harmonise two systems requires formal discussion, decision and
documentation and neither you nor I have found any evidence of that. >>>
change the fact that a UK billion today is one thousand million.
Period.
You have still produced no no proof for your original assertion that the >>UK billion has been harmonised with the US billion, which was the point >>in question. Common misusage does not alter the facts.
I'm not obliged to provide you with *anything*. The fact that I informed
you what a billion is today was a courtesy extended to you by my infinite patience as a decent human being.
On Sat, 23 Nov 2024 19:05:36 -0000 (UTC), antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) wrote:
Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
The data "sheet" for the new processor I'm using is ~16,000 pages.
(note carefully the position of the comma separator)
In my country people would ask why are you putting decimal
comma in a number that is supposed to be an integer?
Are there any English-speaking countries that show an integer as
123.456.789 ?
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.
On Sun, 24 Nov 2024 20:25:59 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 11/24/24 18:37, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 24 Nov 2024 17:25:43 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
On Sun, 24 Nov 2024 11:30:34 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid >>>>> (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
Also be aware that the term "Billion" means a million million
(Bi-million) in English but only a thousand million in American and >>>>>>>> French..
.. where it is a "milliard"
The Milliard is English for a thousand million, which Americans call a >>>>>> "Billion".
Logically the English runs:
10^3 Thousand
10^6 Million
10^9 Milliard
No, that's a duck.
What goes "Quick! Quick!" ?
|
|
|
|
|
A duck with hiccups.
(It will soon be Christmas cracker time.)
Wonderful birds. It's unfortunate that they taste so good.
That may be what will save them. Animals that taste good
don't go extinct. But what a destiny...
Jeroen Belleman
I wonder if any animals have evolved to taste bad. Or be outright
poisonous.
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" wasCan you give a reference for that? I haven't found one.
harmonised many years ago at one thousand million so there's no confusion. >>>
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.
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
Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 28 Nov 2024 07:22:01 -0800, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 28 Nov 2024 10:36:08 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalidare-uk-
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 22:27:12 +0000, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 07:51:04 +0000,
liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 10:21:56 +0000, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 24 Nov 2024 18:22:22 +0000, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
[...]
the English and American "billion" was harmonised manyCan you give a reference for that? I haven't found one.
years ago at one thousand million so there's no confusion. >> >>> >> >> >> >
Try this:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/articles/questions/why-
and-
Fine believe whatever delusions you want to believe but it doesn'tamerican-billions-different
It just repeats the myth but doesn't give a reference.
It's not a myth. UK and US billions have been harmonized at
1,000,000,000 for as long as I can remember now. As I recall, it >> >>> >> >> was just done simply via adoption rather than any Act of
Parliament or Statutory Instrument. IIRC, I think the pressure
to do so came from the finance industry.
Do you have a reference that isn't just heresay?
You can go to BBC.com and search for stories with "billions". They
obviously mean 1e9.
That is not evidence that the two have been harmonised, it just
shows that BBC journalists have adopted American terminology.
To harmonise two systems requires formal discussion, decision and
documentation and neither you nor I have found any evidence of that. >> >>>
change the fact that a UK billion today is one thousand million.
Period.
You have still produced no no proof for your original assertion that the >> >>UK billion has been harmonised with the US billion, which was the point
in question. Common misusage does not alter the facts.
I'm not obliged to provide you with *anything*. The fact that I informed
you what a billion is today was a courtesy extended to you by my infinite
patience as a decent human being.
Making a statement does not place you under any absolute obligation to
back it up with facts - but a failure to do so lays you open to the
suspicion that the statement was false.
On 11/28/2024 6:49 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
Do *you* "write for yourself" or "write for others"?
I.e., do you write assuming YOU are the Reader? Or, that
OTHERS will be the Reader?
[There seems to be a split on how developers write; I think
this would affect their choice of (spoken) languages as well.]
Ah. If I write a script I tend to mix English and Spanish. I tend to use
English thinking of sharing the script or asking questions about it. The places
where I do that are English speaking mostly.
I always write for others -- as, if I have to revisit the code
a year or five hence, *I* will effectively BE one of those
"others".
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:Thank you, that clarifies the situation. The English Billion still
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 >>
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.
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:Thank you, that clarifies the situation. The English Billion still
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 >>
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.
On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 15:33:48 +0100, "Carlos E.R."
<robin_listas@es.invalid> 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.
What is a thousand million in Spanish? Does it have a name? You could
call it a heap or a muddle or a toomany. Heap is best because H is available... M and T are already used. J and L are a excellent letters
too... Jillion or Lump.
Aligning common names with SI units may be the wave of the future.
Actuaslly, the past.
On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 15:33:48 +0100, "Carlos E.R."
<robin_listas@es.invalid> 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.
What is a thousand million in Spanish? Does it have a name?
You could
call it a heap or a muddle or a toomany. Heap is best because H is available... M and T are already used. J and L are a excellent letters
too... Jillion or Lump.
Aligning common names with SI units may be the wave of the future.
Actuaslly, the past.
On Thu, 28 Nov 2024 20:42:59 -0700, Don Y
<blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
On 11/28/2024 6:49 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
Do *you* "write for yourself" or "write for others"?
I.e., do you write assuming YOU are the Reader? Or, that
OTHERS will be the Reader?
[There seems to be a split on how developers write; I think
this would affect their choice of (spoken) languages as well.]
Ah. If I write a script I tend to mix English and Spanish. I tend to use >>> English thinking of sharing the script or asking questions about it. The places
where I do that are English speaking mostly.
I always write for others -- as, if I have to revisit the code
a year or five hence, *I* will effectively BE one of those
"others".
Some guy wrote a c program that strips comments from c programs. His reasoning is that the code speaks for itself, and the comments are
always wrong.
I assume that program was not commented.
I saw a bit of actual Windows source code, and it had a mandatory,
standard comment section at the start of any block of code. It said
*/
Author: Jim Smith
Date: 2018
Purpose: what it says
/*
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...
On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 15:33:48 +0100, "Carlos E.R."
<robin_listas@es.invalid> 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.
What is a thousand million in Spanish? Does it have a name? You could
call it a heap or a muddle or a toomany. Heap is best because H is available... M and T are already used. J and L are a excellent letters
too... Jillion or Lump.
On 2024-11-29 16:21, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 28 Nov 2024 20:42:59 -0700, Don Y
<blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
On 11/28/2024 6:49 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
Do *you* "write for yourself" or "write for others"?
I.e., do you write assuming YOU are the Reader? Or, that
OTHERS will be the Reader?
[There seems to be a split on how developers write; I think
this would affect their choice of (spoken) languages as well.]
Ah. If I write a script I tend to mix English and Spanish. I tend to use >>>> English thinking of sharing the script or asking questions about it. The places
where I do that are English speaking mostly.
I always write for others -- as, if I have to revisit the code
a year or five hence, *I* will effectively BE one of those
"others".
Some guy wrote a c program that strips comments from c programs. His
reasoning is that the code speaks for itself, and the comments are
always wrong.
Ridiculous.
I assume that program was not commented.
I saw a bit of actual Windows source code, and it had a mandatory,
standard comment section at the start of any block of code. It said
*/
Author: Jim Smith
Date: 2018
Purpose: what it says
/*
My first job was as programmer for small company. They had tasked an
external programmer with creating a software for them with LabWindows.
This thing creates displays; think a virtual oscilloscope display, for >instance, measuring things like temperature, pressure, rpm, etc. My boss
says "I want you to add a voltage display". Simple.
Well, the original programmer had removed the header file that assigned >labels to both the display windows and the code. The code would say >"display_crt(31, A1)", where 31 was the element in the display to
display rpm, for instance. If I inserted "voltage" in the display
window, all the numbers shifted by one, so that 31 became pressure, for >instance.
The programmer had sabotaged the code so that no one could touch it by >replacing labels with their values.
It took me months to recreate the header file with labels. My boss
thought I was useless: it is difficult to explain this to a non programmer.
I carefully documented since then every program I wrote. I did not want
any other person to suffer what I did.
My first job was as programmer for small company. They had tasked an external programmer with creating a software for them with LabWindows. This thing creates displays; think a virtual oscilloscope display, for instance, measuring
things like temperature, pressure, rpm, etc. My boss says "I want you to add a
voltage display". Simple.
Well, the original programmer had removed the header file that assigned labels
to both the display windows and the code. The code would say "display_crt(31, A1)", where 31 was the element in the display to display rpm, for instance. If
I inserted "voltage" in the display window, all the numbers shifted by one, so
that 31 became pressure, for instance.
The programmer had sabotaged the code so that no one could touch it by replacing labels with their values.
It took me months to recreate the header file with labels. My boss thought I was useless: it is difficult to explain this to a non programmer.
I carefully documented since then every program I wrote. I did not want any other person to suffer what I did.
On 2024-11-29 16:21, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 28 Nov 2024 20:42:59 -0700, Don Y
<blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
On 11/28/2024 6:49 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
Do *you* "write for yourself" or "write for others"?
I.e., do you write assuming YOU are the Reader? Or, that
OTHERS will be the Reader?
[There seems to be a split on how developers write; I think
this would affect their choice of (spoken) languages as well.]
Ah. If I write a script I tend to mix English and Spanish. I tend to use >>>> English thinking of sharing the script or asking questions about it. The places
where I do that are English speaking mostly.
I always write for others -- as, if I have to revisit the code
a year or five hence, *I* will effectively BE one of those
"others".
Some guy wrote a c program that strips comments from c programs. His
reasoning is that the code speaks for itself, and the comments are
always wrong.
Ridiculous.
I assume that program was not commented.
I saw a bit of actual Windows source code, and it had a mandatory,
standard comment section at the start of any block of code. It said
*/
Author: Jim Smith
Date: 2018
Purpose: what it says
/*
My first job was as programmer for small company. They had tasked an
external programmer with creating a software for them with LabWindows.
This thing creates displays; think a virtual oscilloscope display, for >instance, measuring things like temperature, pressure, rpm, etc. My boss
says "I want you to add a voltage display". Simple.
Well, the original programmer had removed the header file that assigned >labels to both the display windows and the code. The code would say >"display_crt(31, A1)", where 31 was the element in the display to
display rpm, for instance. If I inserted "voltage" in the display
window, all the numbers shifted by one, so that 31 became pressure, for >instance.
The programmer had sabotaged the code so that no one could touch it by >replacing labels with their values.
It took me months to recreate the header file with labels. My boss
thought I was useless: it is difficult to explain this to a non programmer.
I carefully documented since then every program I wrote. I did not want
any other person to suffer what I did.
On 11/29/2024 3:30 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
My first job was as programmer for small company. They had tasked an
external programmer with creating a software for them with LabWindows.
This thing creates displays; think a virtual oscilloscope display, for
instance, measuring things like temperature, pressure, rpm, etc. My
boss says "I want you to add a voltage display". Simple.
Well, the original programmer had removed the header file that
assigned labels to both the display windows and the code. The code
would say "display_crt(31, A1)", where 31 was the element in the
display to display rpm, for instance. If I inserted "voltage" in the
display window, all the numbers shifted by one, so that 31 became
pressure, for instance.
The programmer had sabotaged the code so that no one could touch it by
replacing labels with their values.
It took me months to recreate the header file with labels. My boss
thought I was useless: it is difficult to explain this to a non
programmer.
I took a contract, years ago, to address a similar issue; they had hired
a "student" to write the code, he managed to get it working, then finished school and "moved on".
Of course, they eventually wanted to modify the product and discovered that they didn't have a *copy* of the source code -- not even a PRINT copy!
So, I reverse engineered the binary (not just "decompile" because that
sort of result adds very little to understanding the code) adding comments, judiciously choosing function and variable names, etc.
Some years later, I took on a much larger reverse engineering job (500KB binary). But, relied on tools to help with a lot of the grunt work.
I carefully documented since then every program I wrote. I did not
want any other person to suffer what I did.
Be thankful it wasn't intentionally obfuscated! In your case, all you had to do was recreate the symbol mappings. Imagine if the original code had been passed through an obfuscator so, in addition to symbolic names, the actual control flow had been deliberately distorted!
For closed designs, it is relatively easy to embed invisible dependencies
in the code that are highly resistant to "tampering" (revising the
software is just a special case of tampering!). If you don't understand that this has been done to thwart your efforts, you can spend AGES looking for elusive bugs that have been DESIGNED to deliberately hide!
[The goal of any such effort is to increase the cost of copying/modifying
to the point where it approaches the cost of designing from scratch]
john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 15:33:48 +0100, "Carlos E.R."
<robin_listas@es.invalid> 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.
What is a thousand million in Spanish? Does it have a name? You could
call it a heap or a muddle or a toomany. Heap is best because H is
available... M and T are already used. J and L are a excellent letters
too... Jillion or Lump.
Europe has miliard, that was already mentioned. I would use it
when meaning 1.0e9, no chance for confusion. For 1.0e12 I
would use "thousend of miliards", as that IMO is less confusing
for Americans than "billion".
E.g., display_crt(31, A1) might be transformed into:
   figger = 961;
   bugger(123, 9987, foo);
   blandow();
bugger(int vvvrs, int vvvsr, char *gobbler) {
   fftre = strlen(gobbler) + 88;
   for (greg = fftre; greg -= 3; greg > 4)
            sstste += greg[gobbler];
   figger += 8*8 - 1;
}
blandow() {
   display_crt(sqrt(figger), A1);
   figger -=25;
}
On 2024-11-30 02:00, Don Y wrote:
On 11/29/2024 3:30 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
My first job was as programmer for small company. They had tasked an
external programmer with creating a software for them with LabWindows. This >>> thing creates displays; think a virtual oscilloscope display, for instance, >>> measuring things like temperature, pressure, rpm, etc. My boss says "I want >>> you to add a voltage display". Simple.
Well, the original programmer had removed the header file that assigned
labels to both the display windows and the code. The code would say
"display_crt(31, A1)", where 31 was the element in the display to display >>> rpm, for instance. If I inserted "voltage" in the display window, all the >>> numbers shifted by one, so that 31 became pressure, for instance.
The programmer had sabotaged the code so that no one could touch it by
replacing labels with their values.
It took me months to recreate the header file with labels. My boss thought I
was useless: it is difficult to explain this to a non programmer.
I took a contract, years ago, to address a similar issue; they had hired
a "student" to write the code, he managed to get it working, then finished >> school and "moved on".
Of course, they eventually wanted to modify the product and discovered that >> they didn't have a *copy* of the source code -- not even a PRINT copy!
So, I reverse engineered the binary (not just "decompile" because that
sort of result adds very little to understanding the code) adding comments, >> judiciously choosing function and variable names, etc.
Some years later, I took on a much larger reverse engineering job (500KB
binary). But, relied on tools to help with a lot of the grunt work.
I carefully documented since then every program I wrote. I did not want any >>> other person to suffer what I did.
Be thankful it wasn't intentionally obfuscated! In your case, all you had >> to do was recreate the symbol mappings. Imagine if the original code had >> been passed through an obfuscator so, in addition to symbolic names, the
actual control flow had been deliberately distorted!
Huh. I think not, because then the LabWindows environment would not run.
For closed designs, it is relatively easy to embed invisible dependencies
in the code that are highly resistant to "tampering" (revising the
software is just a special case of tampering!). If you don't understand
that this has been done to thwart your efforts, you can spend AGES looking >> for elusive bugs that have been DESIGNED to deliberately hide!
[The goal of any such effort is to increase the cost of copying/modifying
to the point where it approaches the cost of designing from scratch]
Or to force hiring again the original developer.
On 11/29/2024 6:44 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2024-11-30 02:00, Don Y wrote:
On 11/29/2024 3:30 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
My first job was as programmer for small company. They had tasked an
external programmer with creating a software for them with
LabWindows. This thing creates displays; think a virtual
oscilloscope display, for instance, measuring things like
temperature, pressure, rpm, etc. My boss says "I want you to add a
voltage display". Simple.
Well, the original programmer had removed the header file that
assigned labels to both the display windows and the code. The code
would say "display_crt(31, A1)", where 31 was the element in the
display to display rpm, for instance. If I inserted "voltage" in the
display window, all the numbers shifted by one, so that 31 became
pressure, for instance.
The programmer had sabotaged the code so that no one could touch it
by replacing labels with their values.
It took me months to recreate the header file with labels. My boss
thought I was useless: it is difficult to explain this to a non
programmer.
I took a contract, years ago, to address a similar issue; they had hired >>> a "student" to write the code, he managed to get it working, then
finished
school and "moved on".
Of course, they eventually wanted to modify the product and
discovered that
they didn't have a *copy* of the source code -- not even a PRINT copy!
So, I reverse engineered the binary (not just "decompile" because that
sort of result adds very little to understanding the code) adding
comments,
judiciously choosing function and variable names, etc.
Some years later, I took on a much larger reverse engineering job (500KB >>> binary). But, relied on tools to help with a lot of the grunt work.
I carefully documented since then every program I wrote. I did not
want any other person to suffer what I did.
Be thankful it wasn't intentionally obfuscated! In your case, all
you had
to do was recreate the symbol mappings. Imagine if the original code
had
been passed through an obfuscator so, in addition to symbolic names, the >>> actual control flow had been deliberately distorted!
Huh. I think not, because then the LabWindows environment would not run.
Obfuscators preserve the intended functionality. They just dick with
the steps to get TO it.
E.g., display_crt(31, A1) might be transformed into:
   figger = 961;
   bugger(123, 9987, foo);
   blandow();
bugger(int vvvrs, int vvvsr, char *gobbler) {
   fftre = strlen(gobbler) + 88;
   for (greg = fftre; greg -= 3; greg > 4)
            sstste += greg[gobbler];
   figger += 8*8 - 1;
}
blandow() {
   display_crt(sqrt(figger), A1);
   figger -=25;
}
Though, more likely, superfluous whitespace and newlines would be
omitted just to make it look like a REAL mess!
[If I've done this correctly (in my head), you will see that display_crt
is invoked with the same arguments in your original case. There's just
lots of other cruft inserted that does nothing productive (though that
stuff could also be looking forward to something ELSE that will be done, later -- e.g., arranging for figger to have a particular value that
can be exploited later.]
You can also "break rules", like using values left on the stack after
a function return -- because you KNOW you aren't going to do anything
to compromise those values before you can access them (a taboo,
otherwise)
For closed designs, it is relatively easy to embed invisible
dependencies
in the code that are highly resistant to "tampering" (revising the
software is just a special case of tampering!). If you don't understand >>> that this has been done to thwart your efforts, you can spend AGES
looking
for elusive bugs that have been DESIGNED to deliberately hide!
[The goal of any such effort is to increase the cost of copying/
modifying
to the point where it approaches the cost of designing from scratch]
Or to force hiring again the original developer.
This is most often done BY the principal to protect his IP.
I had a client complain that my code was "broken" (I provide free
lifetime support as an indication of the faith I have in my
deliverables). Yet, the binary he delivered in the sample product
(I don't keep client prototypes as they take up too much space)
was obviously different from the code delivered (amusing how
often this happens! Do you really think I won't notice that you're
giving me something that is different from what I delivered? Do
you think that I don't KEEP copies of all this stuff???).
He begrudgingly admitted that he had run an obfuscator on my
code with the "guarantee" that the code would function as originally intended.
Nope.
"Well, can you at least take a LOOK at it?"
"Sorry, I have no desire to sort out YOUR mess. Talk to the folks
who made the 'guarantee'."
Your goal (as an employee, contractor, supplier, etc.) should always
be to have the client/customer NOT need you after the "sale". If
he likes what he got, then he'll come back for more work/product.
Forcing or coercing the client or customer inevitably leaves a
bad taste in their mouth -- that they associate with *you*!
john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 15:33:48 +0100, "Carlos E.R."
<robin_listas@es.invalid> 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.
What is a thousand million in Spanish? Does it have a name? You could
call it a heap or a muddle or a toomany. Heap is best because H is
available... M and T are already used. J and L are a excellent letters
too... Jillion or Lump.
Europe has miliard, that was already mentioned. I would use it when
meaning 1.0e9, no chance for confusion. For 1.0e12 I would use
"thousend of miliards", as that IMO is less confusing for Americans than "billion".
On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 08:56:17 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalidwhy-
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 28 Nov 2024 07:22:01 -0800, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 28 Nov 2024 10:36:08 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 22:27:12 +0000, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 07:51:04 +0000,
liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 10:21:56 +0000, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 24 Nov 2024 18:22:22 +0000, Liz Tuddenham 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.
Try this:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/articles/questions/
are-uk-
and-
american-billions-different
It just repeats the myth but doesn't give a reference.
It's not a myth. UK and US billions have been harmonized at
1,000,000,000 for as long as I can remember now. As I
recall, it was just done simply via adoption rather than any
Act of Parliament or Statutory Instrument. IIRC, I think the
pressure to do so came from the finance industry.
Do you have a reference that isn't just heresay?
You can go to BBC.com and search for stories with "billions".
They obviously mean 1e9.
That is not evidence that the two have been harmonised, it just
shows that BBC journalists have adopted American terminology.
To harmonise two systems requires formal discussion, decision
and documentation and neither you nor I have found any evidence
of that.
Fine believe whatever delusions you want to believe but it doesn't
change the fact that a UK billion today is one thousand million.
Period.
You have still produced no no proof for your original assertion that
the UK billion has been harmonised with the US billion, which was
the point in question. Common misusage does not alter the facts.
I'm not obliged to provide you with *anything*. The fact that I
informed you what a billion is today was a courtesy extended to you by
my infinite patience as a decent human being.
Making a statement does not place you under any absolute obligation to
back it up with facts - but a failure to do so lays you open to the >>suspicion that the statement was false.
Gosh, how can he live with the shame?
On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 22:50:35 -0000 (UTC), antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) wrote:
john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:We understand giga and tera. I hear people say gigabucks, 1e9 dollars.
On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 15:33:48 +0100, "Carlos E.R."
<robin_listas@es.invalid> 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.
What is a thousand million in Spanish? Does it have a name? You could
call it a heap or a muddle or a toomany. Heap is best because H is
available... M and T are already used. J and L are a excellent letters
too... Jillion or Lump.
Europe has miliard, that was already mentioned. I would use it when >>meaning 1.0e9, no chance for confusion. For 1.0e12 I would use
"thousend of miliards", as that IMO is less confusing for Americans than >>"billion".
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:All this abundantly demonstrates that we're better off using the metric
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.
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)
On 2024-11-24, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
On Sun, 24 Nov 2024 20:25:59 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 11/24/24 18:37, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 24 Nov 2024 17:25:43 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalidThat may be what will save them. Animals that taste good don't go >>>extinct. But what a destiny...
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
On Sun, 24 Nov 2024 11:30:34 +0000,
liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
Also be aware that the term "Billion" means a million million >>>>>>>>> (Bi-million) in English but only a thousand million in American >>>>>>>>> and French..
.. where it is a "milliard"
The Milliard is English for a thousand million, which Americans
call a "Billion".
Logically the English runs:
10^3 Thousand 10^6 Million 10^9 Milliard
No, that's a duck.
What goes "Quick! Quick!" ?
|
|
|
|
|
A duck with hiccups.
(It will soon be Christmas cracker time.)
Wonderful birds. It's unfortunate that they taste so good.
Jeroen Belleman
I wonder if any animals have evolved to taste bad. Or be outright
poisonous.
puffer fish, Koala, several other animals with extreme diets.
Obfuscators preserve the intended functionality. They just dick with
the steps to get TO it.
E.g., display_crt(31, A1) might be transformed into:
    figger = 961;
    bugger(123, 9987, foo);
    blandow();
bugger(int vvvrs, int vvvsr, char *gobbler) {
    fftre = strlen(gobbler) + 88;
    for (greg = fftre; greg -= 3; greg > 4)
             sstste += greg[gobbler];
    figger += 8*8 - 1;
}
blandow() {
    display_crt(sqrt(figger), A1);
    figger -=25;
}
Ok, but the LabWindows IDE of the time would possibly explode. That thing converted code C <-> Basic, so the C language you could use was limited.
Besides, I would tell my boss not to pay him or to sue.
Making a statement does not place you under any absolute obligation to
back it up with facts - but a failure to do so lays you open to the
suspicion that the statement was false.
On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 07:23:34 -0800, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 08:56:17 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
why-Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 28 Nov 2024 07:22:01 -0800, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 28 Nov 2024 10:36:08 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid >>> > (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 22:27:12 +0000, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 07:51:04 +0000,
liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 10:21:56 +0000, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 24 Nov 2024 18:22:22 +0000, Liz Tuddenham 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.
Try this:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/articles/questions/
are-uk-
and-
american-billions-different
It just repeats the myth but doesn't give a reference.
It's not a myth. UK and US billions have been harmonized at
1,000,000,000 for as long as I can remember now. As I
recall, it was just done simply via adoption rather than any >>> >>> >> >> Act of Parliament or Statutory Instrument. IIRC, I think the >>> >>> >> >> pressure to do so came from the finance industry.
Do you have a reference that isn't just heresay?
You can go to BBC.com and search for stories with "billions".
They obviously mean 1e9.
That is not evidence that the two have been harmonised, it just
shows that BBC journalists have adopted American terminology.
To harmonise two systems requires formal discussion, decision
and documentation and neither you nor I have found any evidence
of that.
Fine believe whatever delusions you want to believe but it doesn't >>> >>> change the fact that a UK billion today is one thousand million.
Period.
You have still produced no no proof for your original assertion that >>> >>the UK billion has been harmonised with the US billion, which was
the point in question. Common misusage does not alter the facts.
I'm not obliged to provide you with *anything*. The fact that I
informed you what a billion is today was a courtesy extended to you by >>> my infinite patience as a decent human being.
Making a statement does not place you under any absolute obligation to >>back it up with facts - but a failure to do so lays you open to the >>suspicion that the statement was false.
Gosh, how can he live with the shame?
I'll manage. :) OTOH, "Liz" has exhibited extraordinary obtusity IRO this very simple matter and will have to live with THAT stain on "her"
reputation.
liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) writes:
Making a statement does not place you under any absolute obligation to
back it up with facts - but a failure to do so lays you open to the suspicion that the statement was false.
Do you have any facts to back that up with? ;-)
On 12/1/2024 6:27 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
Obfuscators preserve the intended functionality. They just dick with
the steps to get TO it.
E.g., display_crt(31, A1) might be transformed into:
    figger = 961;
    bugger(123, 9987, foo);
    blandow();
bugger(int vvvrs, int vvvsr, char *gobbler) {
    fftre = strlen(gobbler) + 88;
    for (greg = fftre; greg -= 3; greg > 4)
             sstste += greg[gobbler];
    figger += 8*8 - 1;
}
blandow() {
    display_crt(sqrt(figger), A1);
    figger -=25;
}
Ok, but the LabWindows IDE of the time would possibly explode. That
thing converted code C <-> Basic, so the C language you could use was
limited.
Possibly. But, someone EXPERIENCED with it would likely know what you
can do to make code "less readable" -- without throwing up red flags that
you were intentionally doing so.
Consider how many folks write unreadable code without even TRYING to do so! The "production code" that I've seen has, for the most part, been...
GHASTLY!
(as if the programmer was just trying to get it /work/ with no concerns for style, reliability, readability, etc.)
Besides, I would tell my boss not to pay him or to sue.
That assumes you have someone competent to review the original work.
Often, folks hire "outside talent" because they don't have the
skills, internally.
And, such "evaluations" are always subjective; you can't POINT to
some particular thing and say "this is bad" -- even if the whole
thing is bad! The boss weighs that against "Yeah, but does it WORK?
If I don't pay him, will I have to find someone else to solve MY
problem?? And, how long will THAT take?"
liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) writes:
Making a statement does not place you under any absolute obligation to
back it up with facts - but a failure to do so lays you open to the
suspicion that the statement was false.
Do you have any facts to back that up with? ;-)
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:All this abundantly demonstrates that we're better off using the metric
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.
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.
Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 07:23:34 -0800, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 08:56:17 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalidwhy-
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 28 Nov 2024 07:22:01 -0800, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 28 Nov 2024 10:36:08 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid >> >>> > (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 22:27:12 +0000, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 07:51:04 +0000,
liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 10:21:56 +0000, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 24 Nov 2024 18:22:22 +0000, Liz Tuddenham 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.
Try this:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/articles/questions/
are-uk-
and-
american-billions-different
It just repeats the myth but doesn't give a reference.
It's not a myth. UK and US billions have been harmonized at
1,000,000,000 for as long as I can remember now. As I
recall, it was just done simply via adoption rather than any >> >>> >>> >> >> Act of Parliament or Statutory Instrument. IIRC, I think the >> >>> >>> >> >> pressure to do so came from the finance industry.
Do you have a reference that isn't just heresay?
You can go to BBC.com and search for stories with "billions".
They obviously mean 1e9.
That is not evidence that the two have been harmonised, it just
shows that BBC journalists have adopted American terminology.
To harmonise two systems requires formal discussion, decision
and documentation and neither you nor I have found any evidence
of that.
Fine believe whatever delusions you want to believe but it doesn't >> >>> >>> change the fact that a UK billion today is one thousand million.
Period.
You have still produced no no proof for your original assertion that >> >>> >>the UK billion has been harmonised with the US billion, which was
the point in question. Common misusage does not alter the facts.
I'm not obliged to provide you with *anything*. The fact that I
informed you what a billion is today was a courtesy extended to you by >> >>> my infinite patience as a decent human being.
Making a statement does not place you under any absolute obligation to
back it up with facts - but a failure to do so lays you open to the
suspicion that the statement was false.
Gosh, how can he live with the shame?
I'll manage. :) OTOH, "Liz" has exhibited extraordinary obtusity IRO this
very simple matter and will have to live with THAT stain on "her"
reputation.
It's a terrible burden when I eventually get to the truth and find I was >right all along. Don't worry, I'll get over it after a bit of retail >therapy.
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)
I hated HP calculators with their reverse polish notation. I bought TI instead, or Casio later.
On 2024-12-01 19:15, Cursitor Doom wrote:
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:All this abundantly demonstrates that we're better off using the metric >>>> prefixes instead. It'll be next to impossible to make politicians and
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.
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.
I hated HP calculators with their reverse polish notation. I bought TI >instead, or Casio later.
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.
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.
On 12/2/24 14:19, Carlos E.R. wrote:
[...]
I hated HP calculators with their reverse polish notation. I bought TI
instead, or Casio later.
That's surprising from a person comfortable with software.
I found algebraic entry calculators clumsy. I went the
opposite way.
What gripe do you have with RPN?
On 12/2/24 14:19, Carlos E.R. wrote:
[...]
I hated HP calculators with their reverse polish notation. I bought TI
instead, or Casio later.
That's surprising from a person comfortable with software.
I found algebraic entry calculators clumsy. I went the
opposite way.
What gripe do you have with RPN?
Jeroen Belleman
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
On 2024-12-02 15:17, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
On 12/2/24 14:19, Carlos E.R. wrote:
[...]
I hated HP calculators with their reverse polish notation. I bought TI
instead, or Casio later.
That's surprising from a person comfortable with software.
I enter calculations in the calculators in the same way I do when I
write Pascal, C, Basic, or plain language.
I found algebraic entry calculators clumsy. I went the
opposite way.
What gripe do you have with RPN?
Not human.
On 2024-12-02 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.
er...
10^9 = 1e9
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
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?ÿ I haven't found one.
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN04440/ >>>>>>> SN04440.pdf
Thank you, that clarifies the situation.ÿ 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
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)
Besides, I would tell my boss not to pay him or to sue.
That assumes you have someone competent to review the original work.
Often, folks hire "outside talent" because they don't have the
skills, internally.
Correct, that's why they hired me ;-)
And, such "evaluations" are always subjective; you can't POINT to
some particular thing and say "this is bad" -- even if the whole
thing is bad! The boss weighs that against "Yeah, but does it WORK?
If I don't pay him, will I have to find someone else to solve MY
problem?? And, how long will THAT take?"
There is that. He would have to pay that programmer in the future for any small
modification of the program, though. And he did want a few modifications (the specs from the client got modified as they saw the result)
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
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:https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN04440/ >>>>>>>>>>> SN04440.pdf
[...]
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. >>>>>>>>>>>
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.
On Mon, 2 Dec 2024 15:59:32 +0100, "Carlos E.R."
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2024-12-02 15:17, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
On 12/2/24 14:19, Carlos E.R. wrote:
[...]
I hated HP calculators with their reverse polish notation. I bought TI >>>> instead, or Casio later.
That's surprising from a person comfortable with software.
I enter calculations in the calculators in the same way I do when I
write Pascal, C, Basic, or plain language.
I found algebraic entry calculators clumsy. I went the
opposite way.
What gripe do you have with RPN?
Not human.
Do you program in Basic? It is not popular with the coder culture.
I loved Basic-Plus on the Dec RSTS time-share system.
I use the PowerBasic Console Compiler now. It's awesome. It has stuff
like PRINT USING$ and TCP OPEN and 80-bit floats.
I have a few ee programs I could share.
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.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 418 |
Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
Uptime: | 04:15:36 |
Calls: | 8,788 |
Calls today: | 15 |
Files: | 13,296 |
Messages: | 5,965,774 |