• Redjard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    edit-2
    11 hours ago

    Wouldn’t this make the units temperature-dependent?

    Landauer limit is one kTln2 per bit of information, so at 300K about 3 zeptojoule per bit.
    Dividing by c² we get 32 micro-quectogram per bit, so 32 yoctogram per terabit. 256 yoctogram per terabyte.
    The Author wants half a septillion terabytes, 0.5•10²⁴ terabytes, half a yotta-terabyte.
    That makes 128 grams.

    Since I don’t know what on earth “a cup of flour” is, I can’t judge if the comic character proposes a reasonable conversion, but 0.1kg seems like a reasonable amount to use in cooking.

    For baking I would rather have my units temperature dependent than density dependent (I can compact my flour or work with water or nuts, all having different densities, but my room temperature will always be roughly 300).
    I endorse einstein-landauer units.

    • zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      11 hours ago

      184 grams is a touch high for “a cup of flour”, but I’m not gonna check your math, and the comic probably wanted to use “close enough” round-ish numbers. The weight of a cup of flour is usually somewhere between 120g and 145g, going by the conversions used by major baking recipe publishers like King Arthur, Cooks Illustrated, Washington Post, New York Times, etc.

      • Redjard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        11 hours ago

        I fear their apartment is at -50°C and this is a cry for help.

        At least I am relieved to know that even acclaimed authors native to the cup-measurement system don’t know what “a cup of flour is”.

        I’ll be off baking my pannenkoek with 150g of flour then.

      • Redjard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        11 hours ago

        I figured it out. Typed the ln2 into my text and then forgot it in the calculator.
        Great, I’ma redo alll my numbers then rq

  • blackbrook@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    60
    ·
    17 hours ago

    That doesn’t work anyway, since based on wheat variety, growing season, and grinding method, different flours have different information density.

  • DahGangalang@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    13 hours ago

    Metric appears to end at 10^30, but even then, I think the better way to phrase that number would be 5,000 quetta-bytes

    Tera = 10^12; Septillion = 10^21 Source

    • Redjard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      11 hours ago

      *500 000 quettabytes
      *Sextillion = 10^21 ( = Zetta)

      I’d recommend wikipedia here, your source seems to have taken 3 years to update their table and their image is still outdated.

      They likely didn’t use quetta because it was only added 3 years ago, and is still not widely known. Or maybe it sounded better.

      • DahGangalang@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 hour ago

        Derp, that’s what happens when you have to bounce between too many pages on mobile.

        Thanks for the pointer!

      • wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        15 hours ago

        Except that moles would only work for counting granules of ground flour, as there is no “flour” molecule. Also, you’d need to have a very accurate measurement of the average mass of a single granule (or you’d need a packing efficiency coefficient and an average granule radius, otherwise you’d have to literally count them. Also, a mole of flour granules would be INSANELY large. 6.02*10^23 of anything larger than a macromolecule is no joke. At this point, since you’d have to weigh it or measure its volume anyway (unless you feel like counting microscopic flour particles for the next few trillion years), you might as well just use grams.

        • barsoap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          14 hours ago

          There’s a better way: German flour types. They’re specifying mineral content, e.g. standard “white flour” is Type 405, meaning that when you pyrolyse 100g of flour, 405mg of ashes will be left. As the minerals were all in carbon solution before, and temperatures are low enough to not melt them into slag, you’re essentially left with single atoms. Close enough at least for an assumption. If you disagree I shall hand you a mortar.

          Of course, that doesn’t specify everything. I suggest also measuring the released energy, then jot both numbers down on the complex plane. So you have joule-moles of flour.

          • wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            edit-2
            11 hours ago

            We have now reached the peak: figure out how much flour you have by burning it to ash, then carefully measure the mass of that to figure out the amount of flour you need.

        • Lucien [he/him]@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          12 hours ago

          A mole is just a unit of measure. We typically use it to measure the number of atoms or molecules present. But you can also have a mole of other things.

          • wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            12 hours ago

            As a chemistry teacher, I am acutely aware. This is why I suggested that the only “thing” you could measure for flour would be “granules”, the leftover ground bits which make up the substance of the flour. However, a mole of granules would still be insanely large (because you’d have to have 600 sextillion particles of flour, which would take up an insane amount of space) and a mole of any chemical constituent like amylose would be impure, and thus the measure meaningless. The greatest problem still lies in the counting, which would require either nigh-infinite time, or would require a conversion from either mass or volume into moles, so the whole point of using moles becomes moot.

    • imgcat@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      12 hours ago

      Made even worse by mixing cups, spoons, pints, gallons and their crazy ratios

  • Midnitte@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    19 hours ago

    Oh sure, throw a fit — just wait until you want to convert those units to kilojoules!

    Who’s laughing now, tablespoons?!