IMO, ASRock.

Considering that they’re probably the only mobo manufacturer that officially supports using consumer AM4 CPUs on a server (see ASRock Rack), and always supported ECC ram on all AM4 motherboards - and that I haven’t had anything negative happen with any of their products so far (at work) - I personally would choose ASRock next.

Haven’t had the chance to try them for AM5 yet, sadly.

Nope, au contraire, I agree, I’m just pointing out that you said that digital storage conversion should happen in non-scientific notation, so you should now agree with OP in that Google is choosing the wrong output format for a, quote from the screenshot, “Digital Storage” conversion.

And yes, I’m writing multiple comments trying to explain this through narrative, without having to point out what in your reasoning sounds stupid.

I.E. Now don’t you tell me that Google is incapable of figuring out which output format it should use for such a calculation…

Since I apparently need to explain this like you’re 5, please read my last comment like the following:

“Are you now agreeing with me/OP that whenever you work with Digital Storage units you should never use scientific notation?”

Are you telling me that whenever you work with Digital Storage units you should never use scientific notation?

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

It is an issue for two reasons:

1. It’s an approximation, which might be completely useless to you when coding (ie. “Read a 2MiB chunk from a file” is different from “Read a 2097000 byte chunk”)
2. It’s written down in a longer form than it would be if it was just written down in decimal base, which makes it completely useless to use such a notation in this case.

Edit: seems like lemmy.ml is shitting themselves atm, excuse the multiple deleted comments

I don’t see any reply from OP so I’m growing confident that what you’re talking about is not OP’s point.

Often times when coding you may want to quickly write down 2MB but you may need to type it in bytes, so either you calculate 2 * 1024 * 1024 while coding, or you remember the number 2097152.

Now, since 2097152 is not such a common number that one would remember, you may quickly turn to the globally acclaimed oracle search engine to get such an answer, but all you get is a number in scientific notation, approximated, without an option to read it in standard decimal base. So you have to open the calculator and ask the same question again to get the answer you need.

If it helps, try to ignore what’s in the search bar and tell me if it makes more sense.

Edit: Additionally, if you were to NOT use the scientific notation, the length of the result would be shorter:

2,097e+6 (8 characters) vs 2097152 (7 characters)

I don’t think that’s the issue, OP also changed from 1 to 2, so I believe they basically want to know the result of 2 * 1024 * 1024, but the issue is that the result is written in scientific notation.