• HeavyDogFeet@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    What a useless headline. God forbid they just give the actual capacity rather than some abstract, bullshit, flexible measure that means nothing to anyone.

    • BorgDrone@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      I especially like it when they use airplanes to illustrate weight. “… the same as 15 Boeing 747 jumbo jets”. Airplanes are made to be as light as possible, they go to extreme lengths to save as much weight as they can. As such, a 747 is much lighter than most objects of similar size. People have no intuition of the weight of such large objects to begin with, but then they add to it by using something that is much lighter than you’d expect.

    • MasterHound@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      They have to make it as accessible a headline as possible, especially when most don’t read past the headline anyway these days. The average person probably doesn’t have much of an idea as to what 125TB looks like in real world use.

      • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        I’d argue that most people would have a better idea of what 125TB looks like than knowing the size of a 4k movie file, let alone 14,000 of them. They can at least compare 125TB to their 500GB/1TB phone/computer storage.

        • xthexder@l.sw0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Not to mention there’s nearly 10x difference in bitrate between 4K streaming video and actual 4K HDR off a bluray. The only people who know how big a 4K video is these days are nerds and pirates, because it’s not like Netflix tells you.