We'd be Better Off with 9-bit Bytes

Re:We'd be Better Off with 9-bit Bytes by AndrewOMartin on Thursday August 07, 2025 @05:19AM (#44822324)

I just can't resist, pointing out that a "minute" is what you get when you split up an hour into 60 minute (i.e. the word pronounced my-newt) pieces, and a "second" is what you get if you break a minute into 60 pieces (i.e. you've performed the division a "second" time).

By this logic, 0.016 (recurring) seconds should be a called a "third".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We'd be Better Off with 9-bit Bytes by ralfd on Thursday August 07, 2025 @06:43AM (#44822855)

> (i.e. the word pronounced my-newt)

"minute" comes from latin "pars minuta" and the "i" should be pronounced like in "minimum"

> By this logic, 0.016 (recurring) seconds should be a called a "third".

It should be "tertia". I found that in German and Polish it was used that way, but don't know about english:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertie_(Winkel)

https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tercja_k%C4%85towa

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We'd be Better Off with 9-bit Bytes by card_zero on Thursday August 07, 2025 @07:05AM (#44822994)

Should be the etymology of trice (but isn't). Odd omission from English.

Commodores had a 1/60 second "jiffy" for timing interrupts, that's all I could find.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We'd be Better Off with 9-bit Bytes by thaliaarchi on Sunday August 10, 2025 @06:28AM (#44854205)

Unix V1 also used 1/60 seconds

[ Parent | on HN ]