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.

Have you tried Qt but with QMake instead of CMake?

Use Qt Creator instead of Visual Studio.

It is much much easier to manage the project with QMake in my personal opinion, and Qt Creator blends beautifully with the Qt Framework with the kit manager, and the form designer, qmake/cmake integration…

Qt (Framework) manages so much behind the scenes that cross platform is trivial.

My reasoning for suggesting unlisted instead of private is because the recipients might not have a YouTube account, so making it unlisted means they’re certainly able to view the video.

Have you considered keeping them on YouTube but unlisted, so that they don’t show up on your profile nor in youtube searches?

Otherwise, you could create a Google Photos album, but either quality suffers, or the videos will take a lot of space.

All the other options I could suggest either call for a recurrent payment, but trust me, it gets tedious after a while (ie. VPS with Peertube or similar), or call for losing quality by a lot (ie. Whatsapp or Telegram channels/groups), or quickly become unpractical (ie. Mega, Dropbox…)

There are plenty of choices, and if you’re 100% sure you’re fine with recurring payments and having to constantly mantain a system/keep it updated and secure, then go ahead and make a VPS, but if you’d rather have it be convenient, look into additional YouTube settings or common alternatives like Vimeo.

Have you looked into Cloudflare Tunnel? It’s a turnkey solution that does exactly what you want. No idea what the cost is though.

Can we please focus on actual user experience?

Firefox is the only major browser without HDR support on Windows…