▲ 160 ▼ Wikipedia is under attack — and how it can survive (www.theverge.com) submitted 11 months ago by Greenpepper@beehaw.org to c/technology@beehaw.org 33 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] ordnance_qf_17_pounder@reddthat.com 24 points 11 months ago (2 children) The fact you can download the entirety of the site for 111gb sounds pretty damn impressive to me. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] e0qdk@reddthat.com 31 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children) It doesn't actually include all the media, and -- I think -- edit history. It does give you a decent offline copy of the articles with at least the thumbnails of images though. Edit: If you want all the media from Wikimedia Commons (which may also include files that are not in Wikipedia articles directly) the stats for that are: Total file size for all 126,598,734 files: 745,450,666,761,889 bytes (677.98 TB). according to their media statistics page. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] thingsiplay@beehaw.org 13 points 11 months ago (1 child) Nice stats. I always wondered. I get the feeling that ~678 TB is little bit more than ~111 GB. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SteevyT@beehaw.org 17 points 11 months ago (1 child) Like, at least 7GB bigger. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] despoticruin@lemmy.zip 2 points 11 months ago We need a drive that's at least... Three times this size! permalink fedilink source parent [–] Powderhorn@beehaw.org -1 points 11 months ago* (4 children) Dear god, are we still using base 2 for file sizes? At least use TiB like a reasonable person. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] thingsiplay@beehaw.org 7 points 11 months ago (1 child) It doesn't matter in this case, as long as it is documented (and it is by the unit). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 2 points 11 months ago (1 child) To be clear, I'm fine with RAM being base 2 -- it's rather difficult for it not to be given the structure -- but for fixed storage, this is an old-school measurement that only gets worse with each order of magnitude. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] thingsiplay@beehaw.org 1 point 11 months ago* [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 2 points 11 months ago Yes, we all do permalink fedilink source parent [–] Summzashi@lemmy.one 1 point 11 months ago Nobody does that nerd permalink fedilink source parent [–] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml 1 point 11 months ago (1 child) I don't remember which is the stupid "1024 bytes in a kilobyte" one but 745,450,666,761,889 byte is 745 terabytes, that should be 745 TB and that 678 should be what TiB is for And also that entire 677.98 is a useless value, there's nothing that is "677" about this permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 1 point 11 months ago It is if you just truncate! No one should do this, as I don't recall the last time I saw such a textbook example of "rounding error" meaning "we fucked up while rounding." permalink fedilink source parent [–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 11 months ago Text is light. Images are a bit heavier, but there's not too too many. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] e0qdk@reddthat.com 31 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children) It doesn't actually include all the media, and -- I think -- edit history. It does give you a decent offline copy of the articles with at least the thumbnails of images though. Edit: If you want all the media from Wikimedia Commons (which may also include files that are not in Wikipedia articles directly) the stats for that are: Total file size for all 126,598,734 files: 745,450,666,761,889 bytes (677.98 TB). according to their media statistics page. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] thingsiplay@beehaw.org 13 points 11 months ago (1 child) Nice stats. I always wondered. I get the feeling that ~678 TB is little bit more than ~111 GB. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SteevyT@beehaw.org 17 points 11 months ago (1 child) Like, at least 7GB bigger. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] despoticruin@lemmy.zip 2 points 11 months ago We need a drive that's at least... Three times this size! permalink fedilink source parent [–] Powderhorn@beehaw.org -1 points 11 months ago* (4 children) Dear god, are we still using base 2 for file sizes? At least use TiB like a reasonable person. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] thingsiplay@beehaw.org 7 points 11 months ago (1 child) It doesn't matter in this case, as long as it is documented (and it is by the unit). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 2 points 11 months ago (1 child) To be clear, I'm fine with RAM being base 2 -- it's rather difficult for it not to be given the structure -- but for fixed storage, this is an old-school measurement that only gets worse with each order of magnitude. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] thingsiplay@beehaw.org 1 point 11 months ago* [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 2 points 11 months ago Yes, we all do permalink fedilink source parent [–] Summzashi@lemmy.one 1 point 11 months ago Nobody does that nerd permalink fedilink source parent [–] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml 1 point 11 months ago (1 child) I don't remember which is the stupid "1024 bytes in a kilobyte" one but 745,450,666,761,889 byte is 745 terabytes, that should be 745 TB and that 678 should be what TiB is for And also that entire 677.98 is a useless value, there's nothing that is "677" about this permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 1 point 11 months ago It is if you just truncate! No one should do this, as I don't recall the last time I saw such a textbook example of "rounding error" meaning "we fucked up while rounding." permalink fedilink source parent
[–] thingsiplay@beehaw.org 13 points 11 months ago (1 child) Nice stats. I always wondered. I get the feeling that ~678 TB is little bit more than ~111 GB. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SteevyT@beehaw.org 17 points 11 months ago (1 child) Like, at least 7GB bigger. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] despoticruin@lemmy.zip 2 points 11 months ago We need a drive that's at least... Three times this size! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SteevyT@beehaw.org 17 points 11 months ago (1 child) Like, at least 7GB bigger. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] despoticruin@lemmy.zip 2 points 11 months ago We need a drive that's at least... Three times this size! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] despoticruin@lemmy.zip 2 points 11 months ago We need a drive that's at least... Three times this size! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Powderhorn@beehaw.org -1 points 11 months ago* (4 children) Dear god, are we still using base 2 for file sizes? At least use TiB like a reasonable person. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] thingsiplay@beehaw.org 7 points 11 months ago (1 child) It doesn't matter in this case, as long as it is documented (and it is by the unit). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 2 points 11 months ago (1 child) To be clear, I'm fine with RAM being base 2 -- it's rather difficult for it not to be given the structure -- but for fixed storage, this is an old-school measurement that only gets worse with each order of magnitude. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] thingsiplay@beehaw.org 1 point 11 months ago* [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 2 points 11 months ago Yes, we all do permalink fedilink source parent [–] Summzashi@lemmy.one 1 point 11 months ago Nobody does that nerd permalink fedilink source parent [–] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml 1 point 11 months ago (1 child) I don't remember which is the stupid "1024 bytes in a kilobyte" one but 745,450,666,761,889 byte is 745 terabytes, that should be 745 TB and that 678 should be what TiB is for And also that entire 677.98 is a useless value, there's nothing that is "677" about this permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 1 point 11 months ago It is if you just truncate! No one should do this, as I don't recall the last time I saw such a textbook example of "rounding error" meaning "we fucked up while rounding." permalink fedilink source parent
[–] thingsiplay@beehaw.org 7 points 11 months ago (1 child) It doesn't matter in this case, as long as it is documented (and it is by the unit). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 2 points 11 months ago (1 child) To be clear, I'm fine with RAM being base 2 -- it's rather difficult for it not to be given the structure -- but for fixed storage, this is an old-school measurement that only gets worse with each order of magnitude. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] thingsiplay@beehaw.org 1 point 11 months ago* [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 2 points 11 months ago (1 child) To be clear, I'm fine with RAM being base 2 -- it's rather difficult for it not to be given the structure -- but for fixed storage, this is an old-school measurement that only gets worse with each order of magnitude. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] thingsiplay@beehaw.org 1 point 11 months ago* [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml 1 point 11 months ago (1 child) I don't remember which is the stupid "1024 bytes in a kilobyte" one but 745,450,666,761,889 byte is 745 terabytes, that should be 745 TB and that 678 should be what TiB is for And also that entire 677.98 is a useless value, there's nothing that is "677" about this permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 1 point 11 months ago It is if you just truncate! No one should do this, as I don't recall the last time I saw such a textbook example of "rounding error" meaning "we fucked up while rounding." permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 1 point 11 months ago It is if you just truncate! No one should do this, as I don't recall the last time I saw such a textbook example of "rounding error" meaning "we fucked up while rounding." permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 11 months ago Text is light. Images are a bit heavier, but there's not too too many. permalink fedilink source parent