A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
Related communities:
I remember being puzzled by this and many other numbers that kept cropping up. 32, 64, 128, 256, 1024, 2048... Why do programmers and electronic engineers hate round numbers? The other set of numbers that was mysterious was timber and sheet materials. They cut them to 1220 x 2440mm and thicknesses of 18 and 25mm. Are programmers and the timber merchants part of some diabolical conspiracy?
They just do it to look cool in front of their developer friends.
Timber is actually cut in inches. That's why the odd numbers.
32, 64, 128 etc. are all round numbers, counting in binary. They are powers of two. Since computers work in binary, they make logical sense.
1220mm is 4ft, and 18 and 25mm are three-quarters of an inch, and an inch respectively.
They were making a joke. That being said, im not familiar with lumber or imperial<->metric conversions so their second point was lost on me, so thanks.
A previous version of this article said it was "not clear why WhatsApp settled on the oddly specific number." A number of readers have since noted that 256 is one of the most important numbers in computing, since it refers to the number of variations that can be represented by eight switches that have two positions - eight bits, or a byte.
Lol, weird way to say that 256 is a power of two, and computers operate in base two.
It used to be a way bigger deal when computers were very memory scarce, if you needed to say, represent 1024 values, that means you'd use 10 bits or 2 bytes, the remaining 6 bits could be used to store other related information like flags but more often than not it would be waste (unused values that still have to be represented as 0s)
These numbers are pretty arbitrary nowadays but they still show up a lot in computing. They didn't choose 256 so they could represent it in a byte, the real reason is probably that groups larger than 256 can't realistically be managed by users.
That's my 2¢ anyways.
Tbf saying it that way brings a visual metaphor. Simply giving it as a mathematical definition would leave it feeling just as arbitrary.
I remember thinking something similar when I was a kid modding Starcraft. Max levels/ranks in researching was 256 and I always wondered why such a weirdly specific number.