Un Ix [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: š Original date posted:2014-05-04 š Original message:+1(bit) for your bit on ...
š
Original date posted:2014-05-04
š Original message:+1(bit) for your bit on bits.
> On 4/05/2014, at 2:18 pm, "Aaron Voisine" <voisine at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Bit by bit, it's become clear that it's a bit much to worry even a
> little bit that overloading the word "bit" would be every bit as bad
> as a two bit horse with the bit between it's teeth that bit the hand
> that feeds it, or a drill bit broken to bits after just a bit of use.
>
> Aaron
>
> There's no trick to being a humorist when you have the whole
> government working for you -- Will Rodgers
>
>
>> On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 10:18 PM, Drak <drak at zikula.org> wrote:
>> +1
>>
>>> On 4 May 2014 02:06, "Chris Pacia" <ctpacia at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Absent a concerted effort to move to something else other than 'bits', I
>>> would be willing to bet the nomenclature moves in that direction anyway.
>>> 'Bits' is just a shorten word for 'millibits' (or microbits, if you
>>> will). It's easier to say and my guess is people would tend to use it
>>> naturally own their own. Kind of like 'bucks' for dollars.
>>>
>>> The other synergies are:
>>> -bit is part of the word Bitcoin. The currency unit bit is part of a
>>> whole bitcoin.
>>> -bit symbolically represents the tech nature of the bitcoin.
>>> -bit used to be a unit of money way back when. This largely reclaims it.
>>> -when used as money bit when in references to a precession metal coin.
>>> The name 'bitcoin' references that as well as the mimicking of the gold
>>> standard in the protocol rules.
>>>
>>> All around I don't think there is a better fit. I doubt people will get
>>> confused by it. The context it's used in will distinguish it from other
>>> uses of the word.
>>>
>>>> On 05/03/2014 12:27 PM, Mike Caldwell wrote:
>>>> I agree with the sentiment that most people don't understand either
>>>> computer science or Bitcoin. The goal of getting people to understand
>>>> enough about Bitcoin to use it is achievable and a goal that is "in scope"
>>>> of our efforts. Getting them to understand computer science at large at the
>>>> same time, less so.
>>>>
>>>> The fact that people routinely confuse RAM and hard drive sizes has much
>>>> to do with the fact that the average lay person has little need to
>>>> prioritize this as something to keep in the forefront. They don't get
>>>> "horribly" confused, they just simply don't get worked up over what looks to
>>>> them like a rounding error, much to the dismay of anyone who believes that
>>>> everyone should be an expert at computer science. The average joe may
>>>> assess (accurately from his perspective) that the distinction isn't
>>>> important enough to merit significant mental resources and he is justified
>>>> in not expending them that way even if someone else thinks he should.
>>>>
>>>> Poor understanding is precisely what a proper effort to name this would
>>>> be to avoid. It is not frill or aesthetics, it is a planned targeting of
>>>> language to achieve the clearest communication to the widest possible target
>>>> audience using the language most likely to be understood by them in light of
>>>> our objectives. It's marketing.
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>>> On May 3, 2014, at 9:49 AM, "Christophe Biocca"
>>>>> <christophe.biocca at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Context as a disambiguator works fine when the interlocutors
>>>>> understand the topics they're talking about.
>>>>> Not a day goes by without me seeing "neurotypical people" get horribly
>>>>> confused between RAM and Hard Drive sizes, because they share the same
>>>>> units (not that that can be helped, as the units are supposed to be
>>>>> the same, base 1000 vs 1024 notwithstanding).
>>>>>
>>>>> Bit (as a unit) is already really confusing for anyone who doesn't
>>>>> deal with it on a regular basis. I think people who don't see an issue
>>>>> are making an assumption based on their own lack of confusion. We
>>>>> understand computer science AND Bitcoin. Most people have zero
>>>>> understanding of either.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bitcoin already has a ton of issues with terrible names for things:
>>>>>
>>>>> - Mining (for transaction validation).
>>>>> - Addresses (which are meant to be one-time use, and don't even really
>>>>> exist at the network level).
>>>>> - Wallets (which don't hold your bitcoins, can be copied, and all
>>>>> backups can be stolen from equally).
>>>>>
>>>>> I end up having to make the distinctions obvious every time I explain
>>>>> Bitcoin to someone new to it. There's an acceptable tradeoff here,
>>>>> because there were arguably no better words to assign to these
>>>>> concepts (although I'd argue mining is a really awful metaphor, and is
>>>>> the one that prompts the most questions from people). Then add to the
>>>>> pile a bunch of third parties naming themselves after parts of the
>>>>> protocol (Coinbase,Blockchain.info). Not blaming them for it, but I've
>>>>> definitiely seen average people get confused between "the blockchain"
>>>>> and "blockchain.info" (not so much Coinbase, because that name doesn't
>>>>> come up in beginner explanations).
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems downright masochistic to add
>>>>> yet-another-word-that-doesn't-mean-what-you-think-it-means to the pile
>>>>> for no reason other than aesthetics. Are we actively trying to confuse
>>>>> people?
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> "Accelerate Dev Cycles with Automated Cross-Browser Testing - For FREE
>>>> Instantly run your Selenium tests across 300+ browser/OS combos. Get
>>>> unparalleled scalability from the best Selenium testing platform
>>>> available.
>>>> Simple to use. Nothing to install. Get started now for free."
>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/SauceLabs
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>>>> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> "Accelerate Dev Cycles with Automated Cross-Browser Testing - For FREE
>>> Instantly run your Selenium tests across 300+ browser/OS combos. Get
>>> unparalleled scalability from the best Selenium testing platform
>>> available.
>>> Simple to use. Nothing to install. Get started now for free."
>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/SauceLabs
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>>> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> "Accelerate Dev Cycles with Automated Cross-Browser Testing - For FREE
>> Instantly run your Selenium tests across 300+ browser/OS combos. Get
>> unparalleled scalability from the best Selenium testing platform available.
>> Simple to use. Nothing to install. Get started now for free."
>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/SauceLabs
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Accelerate Dev Cycles with Automated Cross-Browser Testing - For FREE
> Instantly run your Selenium tests across 300+ browser/OS combos. Get
> unparalleled scalability from the best Selenium testing platform available.
> Simple to use. Nothing to install. Get started now for free."
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/SauceLabs
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
š Original message:+1(bit) for your bit on bits.
> On 4/05/2014, at 2:18 pm, "Aaron Voisine" <voisine at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Bit by bit, it's become clear that it's a bit much to worry even a
> little bit that overloading the word "bit" would be every bit as bad
> as a two bit horse with the bit between it's teeth that bit the hand
> that feeds it, or a drill bit broken to bits after just a bit of use.
>
> Aaron
>
> There's no trick to being a humorist when you have the whole
> government working for you -- Will Rodgers
>
>
>> On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 10:18 PM, Drak <drak at zikula.org> wrote:
>> +1
>>
>>> On 4 May 2014 02:06, "Chris Pacia" <ctpacia at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Absent a concerted effort to move to something else other than 'bits', I
>>> would be willing to bet the nomenclature moves in that direction anyway.
>>> 'Bits' is just a shorten word for 'millibits' (or microbits, if you
>>> will). It's easier to say and my guess is people would tend to use it
>>> naturally own their own. Kind of like 'bucks' for dollars.
>>>
>>> The other synergies are:
>>> -bit is part of the word Bitcoin. The currency unit bit is part of a
>>> whole bitcoin.
>>> -bit symbolically represents the tech nature of the bitcoin.
>>> -bit used to be a unit of money way back when. This largely reclaims it.
>>> -when used as money bit when in references to a precession metal coin.
>>> The name 'bitcoin' references that as well as the mimicking of the gold
>>> standard in the protocol rules.
>>>
>>> All around I don't think there is a better fit. I doubt people will get
>>> confused by it. The context it's used in will distinguish it from other
>>> uses of the word.
>>>
>>>> On 05/03/2014 12:27 PM, Mike Caldwell wrote:
>>>> I agree with the sentiment that most people don't understand either
>>>> computer science or Bitcoin. The goal of getting people to understand
>>>> enough about Bitcoin to use it is achievable and a goal that is "in scope"
>>>> of our efforts. Getting them to understand computer science at large at the
>>>> same time, less so.
>>>>
>>>> The fact that people routinely confuse RAM and hard drive sizes has much
>>>> to do with the fact that the average lay person has little need to
>>>> prioritize this as something to keep in the forefront. They don't get
>>>> "horribly" confused, they just simply don't get worked up over what looks to
>>>> them like a rounding error, much to the dismay of anyone who believes that
>>>> everyone should be an expert at computer science. The average joe may
>>>> assess (accurately from his perspective) that the distinction isn't
>>>> important enough to merit significant mental resources and he is justified
>>>> in not expending them that way even if someone else thinks he should.
>>>>
>>>> Poor understanding is precisely what a proper effort to name this would
>>>> be to avoid. It is not frill or aesthetics, it is a planned targeting of
>>>> language to achieve the clearest communication to the widest possible target
>>>> audience using the language most likely to be understood by them in light of
>>>> our objectives. It's marketing.
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>>> On May 3, 2014, at 9:49 AM, "Christophe Biocca"
>>>>> <christophe.biocca at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Context as a disambiguator works fine when the interlocutors
>>>>> understand the topics they're talking about.
>>>>> Not a day goes by without me seeing "neurotypical people" get horribly
>>>>> confused between RAM and Hard Drive sizes, because they share the same
>>>>> units (not that that can be helped, as the units are supposed to be
>>>>> the same, base 1000 vs 1024 notwithstanding).
>>>>>
>>>>> Bit (as a unit) is already really confusing for anyone who doesn't
>>>>> deal with it on a regular basis. I think people who don't see an issue
>>>>> are making an assumption based on their own lack of confusion. We
>>>>> understand computer science AND Bitcoin. Most people have zero
>>>>> understanding of either.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bitcoin already has a ton of issues with terrible names for things:
>>>>>
>>>>> - Mining (for transaction validation).
>>>>> - Addresses (which are meant to be one-time use, and don't even really
>>>>> exist at the network level).
>>>>> - Wallets (which don't hold your bitcoins, can be copied, and all
>>>>> backups can be stolen from equally).
>>>>>
>>>>> I end up having to make the distinctions obvious every time I explain
>>>>> Bitcoin to someone new to it. There's an acceptable tradeoff here,
>>>>> because there were arguably no better words to assign to these
>>>>> concepts (although I'd argue mining is a really awful metaphor, and is
>>>>> the one that prompts the most questions from people). Then add to the
>>>>> pile a bunch of third parties naming themselves after parts of the
>>>>> protocol (Coinbase,Blockchain.info). Not blaming them for it, but I've
>>>>> definitiely seen average people get confused between "the blockchain"
>>>>> and "blockchain.info" (not so much Coinbase, because that name doesn't
>>>>> come up in beginner explanations).
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems downright masochistic to add
>>>>> yet-another-word-that-doesn't-mean-what-you-think-it-means to the pile
>>>>> for no reason other than aesthetics. Are we actively trying to confuse
>>>>> people?
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> "Accelerate Dev Cycles with Automated Cross-Browser Testing - For FREE
>>>> Instantly run your Selenium tests across 300+ browser/OS combos. Get
>>>> unparalleled scalability from the best Selenium testing platform
>>>> available.
>>>> Simple to use. Nothing to install. Get started now for free."
>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/SauceLabs
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>>>> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> "Accelerate Dev Cycles with Automated Cross-Browser Testing - For FREE
>>> Instantly run your Selenium tests across 300+ browser/OS combos. Get
>>> unparalleled scalability from the best Selenium testing platform
>>> available.
>>> Simple to use. Nothing to install. Get started now for free."
>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/SauceLabs
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>>> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> "Accelerate Dev Cycles with Automated Cross-Browser Testing - For FREE
>> Instantly run your Selenium tests across 300+ browser/OS combos. Get
>> unparalleled scalability from the best Selenium testing platform available.
>> Simple to use. Nothing to install. Get started now for free."
>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/SauceLabs
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Accelerate Dev Cycles with Automated Cross-Browser Testing - For FREE
> Instantly run your Selenium tests across 300+ browser/OS combos. Get
> unparalleled scalability from the best Selenium testing platform available.
> Simple to use. Nothing to install. Get started now for free."
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/SauceLabs
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development