Talk:Yottabyte

message: "In 2010, it was estimated that storing a yottabyte on terabyte-size disk drives would require one million city block-size data-centers, as big as the states of Delaware and Rhode Island combined" -  needs to be changed to the US states. I also would prefer an actual size rather than a metaphor.
Also: "The total amount of data that could be stored in the observable universe using each of the 1078 to 1082 atoms as single bits of information (using their spin for example) is between 1.25×1053 to 1.25×1057 yottabytes.[5] It would take up to 1.47×1064 years (over one million trillion trillion trillion trillion times the current age of the universe) for a single Samsung 970 pro SSD to write such an amount of data.[6]" - the examples section should be edited for an encyclopaedic format + proper grammar and punctuation.
By AWwikipedia - Sydney, NSW - I like pineapples. (talk) 23:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs work 

message: Why does the binary approximation need citation?  The suffix may not be in common usage at this point, but it doesn't seem hard to imagine that future computers manufactured and described will have exactly that amount (1024^8) of addressable memory.  Once we have that amount, considering precedent, common terminology will unlikely match the unambiguous SI term.  This may be a bit crystal ball, but I don't think the world is likely to change that much between now, and when a yottabyte is feasibly and usefully attainable.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.183.2 (talk) 01:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You said it yourself.  The article is not about how the term might be used in the future, but about how the term is used now, in July 2008.  Can you cite any uses in the binary sense? Thunderbird2 (talk) 08:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you.  I now understand a bit more about the wiki project (and I like that they used the term "crystal ball" :)  The 2nd sub-paragraph shows exactly why my reasoning was incorrect.  So, yes, this needs to have a citation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.183.2 (talk) 04:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

text:  Comments below (in a different section) show that IEC 60027 has something to say about this.  I don't know enough about that standard to comment, but could someone who does know comment on a) whether that standard suggests that it is acceptable to use yottabyte to refer to 1024^8 and b) whether this counts as a significant citation.  Maybe the article should be changed to refer to yobibyte, and simply state that there isn't precedent to say that yottabyte and yobibyte can be synonyms in common usage.  The yobibyte article seems also to make the assertion that they are synonyms, so it should also have a needs-citation flag.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.183.2 (talk) 04:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  IEC makes it clear that (according to their definitions) a yottabyte is exactly 1000^8 bytes, whereas a yobibyte is exactly 1024^8 bytes. The yobibyte article cites the IEC standard and therefore doesn't need the flag.  To my knowledge there is no standards body that defines the yottabyte as 1024^8 bytes - for me that is the key difference.  Thunderbird2 (talk) 10:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Binary vs Decimal 

message: Recent "you suck" and derogatory comments were integrated into the article.... I blanked and then reverted the page, therefore removing the offending comments.
---Your friendly neighborhood 24.238.177.246-
"The term "macabtyte" refers to a storage unit used on Apple computers. It appears larger, is in fact smaller but considerably more expensive than the equivalent PC storage unit. Macabytes have a glowing Apple printed on each byte."  -- based on some google searching there is no such thing.  This looks better fit for uncyclopedia than wikipedia.  I am gonna remove it. - 96-35-10-239.dhcp.stls.mo.charter.com July 7 2009  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.35.10.239 (talk) 02:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism

message: Why does someone want this page on the "Votes for deletion" page?? --Anon
:My mistake. I withdrew it. --Dpbsmith 04:09, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD 

message: Please provide a reference for Brontobyte. See Talk:SI prefix.  --Ian Cairns 23:05, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It's what happens to time-travellers who discover that brontosaurus was not really a herbivore. The article on bronto would have you believe otherwise though. — Trilobite (Talk) 06:57, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brontobyte 

message: What is a brontobyte?? (A link to this word was added to this article.) --66.245.99.179 23:12, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It's what happens to time-travellers who discover that brontosaurus was not really a herbivore. The article on bronto would have you believe otherwise though. — Trilobite (Talk) 06:57, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brontobyte 

message: I thought that the human body was 70% water. If this is true how can there be more oxygen than hydrogen?
:The human body is made up of 65% oxygen by molecular weight, not by number of atoms.  Water is mostly hydrogen, although most of its weight comes from oxygen since oxygen is much heavier. — oo64eva (Alex) (U | T | C) @ June 28, 2005 06:14 (UTC)
::Not all the oxygen in the body is from water, nor is all the hydrogen. Hydrogen is a component of virtually every molecule in the body, and oxygen is only slightly less prevalent. There are certainly more hydrogen atoms in the body, but because they are only 1/16th the weight of an oxygen atom, there would have to be 16 times as many hydrogen atoms as oxygen in order to have an equal weight, which there isn't. ---ray- 22:14, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  H2O 

message: Any actul reason for the link to Yatta at the bottom of the page?  That's just totally unrelated, right? 68.40.186.248 05:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing this out. I deleted it. BTW, do you want to join the project? Anyone can edit, but there are advantages to creating an account if you want to contribute regularly.  To join, create an account and then introduce yourself to the community at the new user log. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yatta 

message: Why is the bit about how many yottabytes it would take to store a human relevant whatsoever? It seems like a bit of useless trivia. Nothing wrong with trivia, but there is absolutely no logical connection whatsoever between yottabytes and human complexity.
MOF 09:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Yottabyte is such an astoundingly large number, that for most people, its shear size is hard to grasp.  By using the molecular scale, this analogy is an attempt to frame the size of the yottabyte in a more practical sense. — oo64eva (Alex) (U | T | C) @ 05:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about that, I didn't mean to click the save page button.  I went ahead and reverted it back. 8.10.128.50 21:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It also adds a bit of flavor to an otherwise bland article. Flame0001 21:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It adds a bit of useless and dubious trivia to an otherwise accurate article, you mean. — Omegatron 21:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Nothing wrong with a little trivia. AllStarZ 23:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can whatever-it-was be put back please? Jackiespeel 17:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i'm for it remaining and as that make five votes for it remaining against two for removing it i'm putting it back.J.L.Main 10:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human complexity 

message: Is there any super computers in a world that have atleast a yottabyte? I think that that would be a good thing to add to this article if there is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ncusa367 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's not.  Useight 22:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this possible 

message: I removed the statement "It has been theorized that everything in the entire universe could be stored in one yottabyte of data."
For one thing, who is it that theorizes this?  The user who put this in here?  A scientist? A school teacher?  Also, this statement has no meaning.  A Yottabyte is a unit of binary storage, not matter.  Assuming that the user meant that the entire universe could be described with one yottabyte of data, that user would have to be more specific.  If one wants to digitally render a 3D environment of the entire universe, it would take a lot more than 1 yottabyte... a hell of a lot more.  If one wanted a 1 kb description of every single atom in the universe then again, this would take up orders of magnitude more than a yottabyte.  If however someone wanted a small description of every body in the universe larger than 4 grams, then perhaps a yottabyte would be adequate.  It all depends.  — oo64eva (Alex) (U | T | C) @ 06:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops! I forgot to remove that when I removed a link to a personal website that had that "theory" on it. Thanks for catching it. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 06:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Everything in the universe 

message: Utah Governor Herbert on June 11, 2012 told the annual meeting of the National Governors' Association that the NSA's 1,500,000 square foot data center being built outside Salt Lake City will be the first facility to house a yottabyte of data.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.128.78 (talk) 20:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Some re-added this. I agree with your original assessment and have re-removed the second statement. 137.148.142.199 (talk) 18:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And I have re-added it again, but I put the quotation in the reference. Two sources making different projections isn't a valid a reason to remove sourced content, just because the two projections happen to disagree. Both are valid. If anything, the text in the article could be rephrased to say that the projection by 2010 ranges between a zettabyte and a yottabyte, depending on the study. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ten year prediction 

message: This article says "[a yottabyte] holds enough memory to record a [=one] humans entire life conversation" but the article on exabyte says that "Mark Liberman calculated the storage requirements for all human speech [i.e. "all words ever spoken by human beings"] at 42 zettabytes, if digitized as 16 kHz 16-bit audio" and that "a project at the UC Berkeley School of Information" calculated it at 5 exabytes, probably (says Liberman) "thinking of text". As the claim in this article is unsourced, I'm removing it altogether until someone finds a more credible and sourced estimate.84.53.74.196 08:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A number of articles suggest that the U.S. government is working towards achieving yottabyte capability.  In fact, a number of them suggest it just for the NSA's $2B Utah storage facility alone. Combined with a number of well-argued articles that suggest various departments of the gov't (including merely the NSA spies) desire things such as the (headline:) "'Total Information Awareness' Data Mining Program" and even complete data storage (including all video and (including telephone) audio. Some of the department heads have in fact admitted pretty close to wanting (or having) exactly that, despite being cancelled by Congress.  Suggest that arena (storage of all human electronic communication) be looked at when looking for potential 'practical' applications (or comparisons) for the yottabyte. See also the NSA discussion below.  --68.127.92.76 (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Practical' application of the yottabyte 

message: The "binary usage" column of the table gives the impression that 1 YB = 2^80 bytes.  No reference is cited for this use either in the template or in the yottabyte article.  Indeed the yottabyte article does not even mention this use. The template needs to be edited to avoid giving this misleading impression. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 11:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This reference says "exabyte EB s60 bytes. This reference lists yottabyte, exabyte, zettabyte, gigabyte etc all with power of two values. I must remind you that you have been told not to push your PoV about binary prefixes on Wikipedia. Glider87 (talk) 06:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  misleading table entry 

message: Could a link to the Dutch version be added?: nl:Yottabyte
WimOckham (talk) 14:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Done --Jnorton7558 (talk) 22:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 17 December 2011 

message: Is there any information available on who named this unit and when?  Does "yotta" come from "yotta,yotta, yotta," meaning blah,blah,blah?  Or from iota?  Or?211.225.33.104 (talk) 05:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The prefix was named in 1991. See Yotta. It is unlikely that the word came from "blah, blah" since science is not colloquial business. Nevertheless, the etymology for yotta should go on the yotta page. Piguy101 (talk) 23:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that the prefix comes from the Greek οκτώ (októ), meaning eight, because it is equal to 1000^8. Piguy101 (talk) 00:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

text: You mean yada yada which could be translated as fuck fuck. --92.214.160.127 (talk) 13:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology? 

message: What comes next after Yottabyte?
Are these candidates for next after Yottabyte real?  Are there other names?  
Xenottabyte               (1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 bytes) 
Shilentnobyte             (1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 bytes)
Domegemegrottebyte (1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 bytes) 
http://highscalability.com/blog/2012/9/11/how-big-is-a-petabyte-exabyte-zettabyte-or-a-yottabyte.html
:They are indeed all real and there are terms for two higher orders of magnitude above a Domegemegrottobyte as well.
Icosebyte = 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 bytes
Monoicosebyte = 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 bytes.
https://twitter.com/verizonnews/status/553944360308719617?lang=en (That was the highest unit of data in use in 2015. Note, however, that he refers to not only the terms you used but also the two I mentioned. All 5 terms are real, but there is no named terms for anything more than a Monoicosebyte (Such as 1000/1024 Monoicosebytes).24.127.197.176 (talk) 04:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The article uses SI approved units. So far, yottabyte is the largest (and was adopted in 1991). Until larger scales are officially adopted, the infobox won't be changed. All of these other terms have simply been suggested by various people, but they aren't universal or official in any way. Coinmanj (talk) 18:46, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Xenottabyte?  Shilentnobyte?  Domegemegrottebyte?   

message: What about tape storage. This article mentions Terabyte drives and microSD cards. How about how many data tapes would it
take to make up one Yottabyte? Sure enough this bit of trivia would be useful for this article. As the hard drive and SD
card analogy made it here. 66.188.81.70 (talk) 21:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tape Storage? 

message: "In 2010, it was estimated that storing a yottabyte on terabyte-size hard drives would require one million city block size data-centers, as big as the states of Delaware and Rhode Island combined.[1] If 200 GB microSDXC cards (the most compact data storage medium available to the public as of early 2015) were used instead, the total volume would be approximately 800000 cubic meters, or the volume of 32 percent of the Great Pyramid of Giza."
Please can someone keep an eye on this section and update it as memory becomes more compressed? If they are Micros SDXC then it appears from 
http://www.picstop.co.uk/memory-cards/sdxc-memory-card?page=3
and
http://www.amazon.co.uk/SanDisk-Extreme-512GB-Memory-SDSDXPA-512G-G46/dp/B010510SEQ/ref=sr_1_2?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1435359174&sr=1-2&keywords=sdxc-cards+512
that the capacity of publically available memory chips has doubled to 512GB. I presume that reduces the volume of space required to one sixth of the Great Pyramid?Robata (talk) 22:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update the Area Required to Store Yottabyte 

message: There is a discussion of the decimal and binary meanings of 'terabyte' at Talk:Terabyte#Disputed_references.  The discussion has possible implications for this page. If you wish to comment, please do so on the terabyte talk page.  Dondervogel 2 (talk) 10:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decimal vs binary meanings of 'terabyte' 

message: Delaware and Rhode Island are flat surfaces, and the Hindenburg was a three dimensional object - so not a direct comparison - and what proportion of people (particularly those living outside the US) would know the geographical areas or the volume. How many double-decker London buses' floor surfaces would the two figures equate to? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:26, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparisons