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.
You may have seen tables of various isotopes of Hydrogen and Helium, those seem to match predictions very well, and there are more than 2 of them, which may be why you are thinking it may go above 2 in the atomic table.
The model can give a "quite accurate" expected value, even when wrong. Example (note numbers are completely made up):
Say there is model A which predicts 2.5-2.6% lithium.
Say there is another model B which predicts 2%-8% lithium.
Say in reality there is 1% lithium.
Both models are apprently wrong. But Model A is more "accurate" in making the wrong prediction. Therefore the text in the article is perfectly correct.
The "upgrade" to Hubble could have been accomplished more cheaply by launching another Hubble.
Actually it will be a lot worse than Venus and due to a different cause in that the sun would actually be irradating many times more energy on it, and possibly even engulfing it in hot plasma. Venus is heated by the insulation of a huge amount of CO2, the Earth with that much CO2 would be equally hot, and Venus without it would be just a tropical Earth. And when the sun expands the CO2 will be irrelevant (I would think the heat would actually make it escape to space), not that that is going to help any.
I don't know if this is a troll, but if not you may be a bit confused about who is "falling for this". It seems you are as you just listed a few outright lies and distortions.
If you believe the environmental cost of making a new car exceeds the savings of using it instead of an old car, then you are the one that is duped. This has been debunked many times. Guess the person who thinks they are 'smart' is you.
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.