Given that he explicitly said he wasn't going to build the hyper loop... It seems to be working out pretty much exactly as he said.
Last I checked the prime factors of 125829120 were 2, 3 and 5, and it very much was not a power of two because of that
No, the JEDEC standard actually agrees with the IEC one - it states that for memory you can optionally use the SI prefixes with binary calculations, but that for storage you should use base 10 computations with the SI prefixes.
Yes, because your OS incorrectly computes the number of GB. It computes the number of GiB, and then displays GB.
Notably, if you stick that same terabyte drive in a mac, or many linux boxes, it'll register as 1TB.
Why are you talking about memory at all in an article about permanent storage?
That was pretty silly of you, given that data isn't stored in powers of two. When was the last time you saw a hard disk with an exact power of two capacity?
No, a "traditional" GB is the one that was defined way before computer scientists got their hands on it –1000. The 1024 "definition" is actually simply a bug. Engineers working on early machines had a choice – take a bug that pretty much no one would notice on an early machine (because files over 1kB were very rare, much less ones over 1MB), or take a massive perf hit. It takes a long time to compute the size of 20 files when a division by 1000 takes 300 odd cycles on a 10kHz machine. It doesn't take such a long time when a right shift 10 takes 1 cycle.
Bottom line, early engineers decided a known bug was better than the enormous perf hit of getting it correct. That doesn't mean that what they did is now correct. It means it remains a bug in some OSes.
No, that would be MibiBytes and GibiBytes. A GB is 1000 times larger than a MB.
On the contrary, 4Mb/s is almost certainly not enough (by the time you take into account contention etc) to stream video. Something like netflix will not work over that, and frankly, I expect any definition of broadband to include the ability to use a video streaming service.
There's no particular reason to not have comparable values of different types
Sure there is - they have different types, therefore they're not equal. It's a ridiculous, useless operation, because it doesn't actually do anything more than always return false.
That said, there's good reason to have an "isSimilarTo" function, but that's not at all the same thing as equality.
No, ultimately, their job is to carry passengers. That means they need to offer enough space for a passenger to sit in. The airline's only choice is to not shrink the seats any more. This may of course mean price increases for all seats.
Even if it were the original code. That would mean that the modder is the one violating mojang's copyright, not the reverse.
Actually, compiler theory is a great example of a language you can't easily learn in any language. The small lightweight structures it generates, and the referentially transparent transformations that you run those structures through lend it strongly to being done with functional languages, and if not, very close to the metal languages like C. Heavy weight OO languages tend to end up just causing you to write 3 tons of boiler plate, rather than actually learning the theory.
You shouldn't. You should (in all languages), explicitly convert the type, and then compare things of equal type. For bonus points, you should only use languages that enforce that the arguments to == are of equal type.
What you just wrote is a strong indicator that you have no clue how much undefined behavior you have in your programs, and just happen to be getting away with just now.