Reply 40 of 72, by robertmo
- Rank
- l33t++
files_in_mb |
+---------------+----------------+
| 2002 | 17.05259323 |
17mb
52kb
593b
23 of what?
files_in_mb |
+---------------+----------------+
| 2002 | 17.05259323 |
17mb
52kb
593b
23 of what?
robertmo wrote on 2021-11-09, 19:04:files_in_mb | +---------------+----------------+ | 2002 | 17.05259323 | 17mb 52kb 593b 23 of what? […]
files_in_mb |
+---------------+----------------+
| 2002 | 17.05259323 |
17mb
52kb
593b
23 of what?
I get the general impression interest by the majority vogons members is a big fat 0
There's a glitch in the matrix.
A founding member of the 286 appreciation society.
Apparently 32-bit is dead and nobody likes P4s.
Of course, as always, I'm open to correction...😉
What were people uploading in 2020 that suddenly took up so much space?
Is this too much voodoo?
Errius wrote on 2021-11-10, 00:29:What were people uploading in 2020 that suddenly took up so much space?
I can only speak for myself:
Mainly photos.
I was happy about the new possibility to attach photos, as I found very annoying/frustrating that most to almost all photos that were hosted externally were not available anymore when I searched for stuff to find solutions.
This diminished the documentation value of the posts/reports a lot, as often the crucial core of information is contained in the images.
Thus I like very much the possibility to upload these as attachment, so this important information no longer gets lost.
Imho this enhances Vogons' usability and documentatory value a lot.
Errius wrote on 2021-11-10, 00:29:What were people uploading in 2020 that suddenly took up so much space?
I'd guess photos from recent many-megapixels mobile phones.
robertmo wrote on 2021-11-09, 19:04:files_in_mb | +---------------+----------------+ | 2002 | 17.05259323 | 17mb 52kb 593b 23 of what? […]
files_in_mb |
+---------------+----------------+
| 2002 | 17.05259323 |
17mb
52kb
593b
23 of what?
Well we know programmers were much more efficient in the old days, maybe someone uploaded an '80s utility that only needs a quarter of a bit 🤣
Edit: or maybe the report was prepared on an original socket 4 Pentium 60
Unicorn herding operations are proceeding, but all the totes of hens teeth and barrels of rocking horse poop give them plenty of hiding spots.
konc wrote on 2021-11-10, 08:31:Errius wrote on 2021-11-10, 00:29:What were people uploading in 2020 that suddenly took up so much space?
I'd guess photos from recent many-megapixels mobile phones.
Maybe.. but the size limit is still there and to top it off the forum software automagically slaughters the image quality to reduce the space images take up if you haven't already saved them at 84% or below quality.
PNG files are a whole other matter. Same goes for images that are not of an expected aspect ratio. You can end up with teensy tiny pics of those so it wastes time because then you have to go back and re-edit the file and reupload it again.. maybe save it in a different image format even.
That being said, when I upload photos, I reduce the image size to not be more than one way of 1080p. Uploads end up being pretty small.
cyclone3d wrote on 2021-11-10, 14:09:That being said, when I upload photos, I reduce the image size to not be more than one way of 1080p. Uploads end up being pretty small.
you don't understand how compression works 😀
robertmo wrote on 2021-11-10, 17:40:cyclone3d wrote on 2021-11-10, 14:09:That being said, when I upload photos, I reduce the image size to not be more than one way of 1080p. Uploads end up being pretty small.
you don't understand how compression works 😀
If it works on 30mp it works just as well on 2mp
exactly, no need to downscale the res, just increase compression factor. you gain way more quality by leaving hi res and lowering colors quality that are not even distinguishable by human eye and compression does the pixelation by itself where most appropriate
But I really don't need to attach 4k+ sized pics. I figure 1080p-ish size is plenty big for a pic posted here.
The built-in forum compression is way worse quality than what GIMP or other real applications produce so I have resorted to making sure I export with 84% quality.
That ends up giving acceptable quality without the forum butchering the quality.
Another reason I do it this way is because the forum then post a sufficiently large image in the post without having to click the image to make it full size.
When you do a huge image, it will sometimes make it a smaller image in the post. I haven't played around with what the max size is before it does that.
robertmo wrote on 2021-11-09, 19:04:files_in_mb | +---------------+----------------+ | 2002 | 17.05259323 | 17mb 52kb 593b 23 of what? […]
files_in_mb |
+---------------+----------------+
| 2002 | 17.05259323 |
17mb
52kb
593b
23 of what?
You're joking, right?
17,880,940 bytes / 1024 = 17461.85546875 kibibytes / 1024 = 17.05259323120117 mebibytes, rounded to 8 decimal places yields 17.05259323 mebibytes
... though I still usually call kibibytes and mebibytes kilobytes and megabytes respectively, as do many filesystems.
retardware wrote on 2021-11-09, 04:47:I fully agree. Vogons don't ask for donations. But they don't reject these as well. I darkly remembered having seen a page abou […]
I fully agree.
Vogons don't ask for donations.
But they don't reject these as well.
I darkly remembered having seen a page about this topic.
G..gle helped me find it: http://vogonsdrivers.com/donate.php
Technically speaking, that goes to support VOGONSDrivers.com, not VOGONS.org - the two are associated by name and membership, but otherwise sending funds to one doesn't fund the other - technically speaking, the two websites are separate, with separate administration and billing.
If I wanted to be -extremely- technical, back in the Stone Age (like nearly 20 years ago), Snover (original VOGONS.org admin and still one of our two admins) offered a Paypal address in the header text of the forum's index page (ex. https://web.archive.org/web/20030210133520/ht … .zetafleet.com/ ), which sent funds to vogons@zetafleet.com. It is unlikely that this still works, and by 2004 the header text had been removed.
red-ray wrote on 2021-11-09, 05:43:Yes, the thread has been a total waste of my time, a simple and clear yes/no answer from a moderator was what I hoped for rather than what happened.
The moderators cannot provide a simple/clear yes/no answer. You're asking the wrong people, then - the only people who have any control over the size of the file attachments would be the people who can change the configuration of the forum software, which would be the forum administrators, not the moderators - of which there are only two: Snover and Qbix, and they might not see this thread.
The moderators can bring this thread to their attention, though.
(Technically Glidos, vladr and Harekiet are also members of the admin group, but they used to be specific subforum administrators versus global administrators, and all three of which are quite inactive, Glidos being the more active of the three. I am not sure if they can change the forum configuration, though.)
Dominus wrote on 2021-11-09, 06:44:1. maybe consider that moderators are not paid for their job here and do it in their *spare* time 2. moderators are only human. […]
1. maybe consider that moderators are not paid for their job here and do it in their *spare* time
2. moderators are only human. Sometimes you get a message, read it and then decide to answer later when you have more time. And then you forget. Especially if it is a topic that is not urgent at all.
3. moderators are not the site owner. *I* couldn’t answer this in a definite way because ir‘s way above my „paygrade“ 🤣
4. please feel less entitled. „Needed to create the thread in the first place“… or complaining and reporting seemingly off topic replies… it’s never your thread, even if you start it. It’s the community‘s 😉
That's precisely what happened, red-ray messaged me on October 28th (apparently) and:
1. I was out of spare time
2. I read it, decided to answer when I had more spare time, and forgot. Sorry, red-ray.
3. As I said above, it's not something moderators can answer. This is a forum admin question.
4. This.
"I see a little silhouette-o of a man, Scaramouche, Scaramouche, will you
do the Fandango!" - Queen
Stiletto
Stiletto wrote on 2021-11-11, 19:57:2. I read it, decided to answer when I had more spare time, and forgot. Sorry, red-ray.
Thank you for your post. I recall you being "more than helpful" over the years, but when I did not get a reply after a few days was unsure what I should do. I feel a " I will get back to you" would have worked well.
Stiletto wrote on 2021-11-11, 19:57:... though I still usually call kibibytes and mebibytes kilobytes and megabytes respectively, as do many filesystems.
This "binary bytes" crap is retcon. I shit upon it
Drives use megabytes, memory uses mebibytes, and network gear uses megabits.
Is this too much voodoo?
Errius wrote on 2021-11-12, 11:41:Drives use megabytes
The Windows Properties panel reports my 255,266,258,560 byte drive as 237 MB rather than 255 MB, all in all it's a mess!
Errius wrote on 2021-11-12, 11:41:Drives use megabytes, memory uses mebibytes, and network gear uses megabits.
My OCD does not agree. 😉
There's a glitch in the matrix.
A founding member of the 286 appreciation society.
Apparently 32-bit is dead and nobody likes P4s.
Of course, as always, I'm open to correction...😉
robertmo wrote on 2021-11-10, 17:40:cyclone3d wrote on 2021-11-10, 14:09:That being said, when I upload photos, I reduce the image size to not be more than one way of 1080p. Uploads end up being pretty small.
you don't understand how compression works 😀
Now that is truely iconic, um I mean ironic. Good post though.
There's a glitch in the matrix.
A founding member of the 286 appreciation society.
Apparently 32-bit is dead and nobody likes P4s.
Of course, as always, I'm open to correction...😉
red-ray wrote on 2021-11-12, 12:42:Errius wrote on 2021-11-12, 11:41:Drives use megabytes
The Windows Properties panel reports my 255,266,258,560 byte drive as 237 MB rather than 255 MB, all in all it's a mess!
Drives are sold with the labeling of MB/GB/TB, hen in fact they are not. Then you also lose some space due to formatting.
If you look at the super fine print on the packaging, they state that they count a MB as 1,000,000 bytes instead of 1,048,576 bytes. All the mfgs should be sued for false advertising.
red-ray wrote on 2021-11-12, 12:42:all in all it's a mess!
Yes, even in Windows 10 you get strange values.
I guess this is from incorrectly converting forth and back with wrong factors several times.