this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2025
159 points (98.2% liked)
Technology
40227 readers
418 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Do theverge have this big font or is something broken on my end?
You can download the entirety of Wikipedia for offline usage, BTW. I do this with an application called Kiwix https://kiwix.org/en/ .
Note that the big one with 111 GB contains images and contains all English language Wikipedia articles. The one with 43 GB should be the same I think, but without images. There are many other variants too, varying in content and theme and even build date. In example the one with "1m Top" contains the top 1 million articles only.
The fact you can download the entirety of the site for 111gb sounds pretty damn impressive to me.
It doesn't actually include all the media, and -- I think -- edit history. It does give you a decent offline copy of the articles with at least the thumbnails of images though.
Edit: If you want all the media from Wikimedia Commons (which may also include files that are not in Wikipedia articles directly) the stats for that are:
according to their media statistics page.
Nice stats. I always wondered. I get the feeling that ~678 TB is little bit more than ~111 GB.
Like, at least 7GB bigger.
We need a drive that's at least... Three times this size!
Dear god, are we still using base 2 for file sizes? At least use TiB like a reasonable person.
Nobody does that nerd
Yes, we all do
I don't remember which is the stupid "1024 bytes in a kilobyte" one but
745,450,666,761,889 byte is 745 terabytes, that should be 745 TB and that 678 should be what TiB is for
And also that entire 677.98 is a useless value, there's nothing that is "677" about this
It is if you just truncate! No one should do this, as I don't recall the last time I saw such a textbook example of "rounding error" meaning "we fucked up while rounding."
It doesn't matter in this case, as long as it is documented (and it is by the unit).
To be clear, I'm fine with RAM being base 2 -- it's rather difficult for it not to be given the structure -- but for fixed storage, this is an old-school measurement that only gets worse with each order of magnitude.