Ayup! Totally like that. And I'm sure they have their own sort of correction-reflex for "My computer has 1TB of memory!" - "Oh, you mean you have 1TB of storage." - "Same thing." - "No. It's not. eyeroll"
I think I spent more time watching video snippets and reading portions of other articles to give myself a lightning course on weaving jargon, just so I could understand what was being talked about in the OP. And suddenly, why looms look as complex as they do and are able to weave complex patterns makes sense. Why looms were automated makes sense, and I find myself with a new sense of respect for those who learn and master operation of a manual loom. It's not a trivial task.
Still haven't been able to figure out what a "differential sett" is. Searching with quotes on google finds a bunch of stuff talking about '"differential sett"lement'. Or stuff about Egypt. Best guess is that it has something to do with using a number of threads per inch that is different from what is set on the reed, or differs across the breadth of the warp.
Off-topic: one of my favorite dev environments had a half terrabyte of memory, and it was _fantastic_ for prototyping -- we rarely had to be bothered with disk spillover or any of the other time sucks that arise in low-RAM environments.
Typically you'd be operating on a lot of data of some kind and gain a lot in productivity by being able to keep all of it (ideal case) or large chunks of it (sampling, LRU cache, etc) in memory all at once.
Having more RAM also enables some workflow changes. You can aggressively point things like intermediate compilation steps or testing databases to a ramdrive. Any time you're doing anything moderately expensive you can cache the result in RAM to make it cheaper to use next time. When choosing algorithms you can bias heavily toward time in any time-space tradeoffs.
> Do you think most developers can benefit with this much RAM?
I'd wager they could use more than they have typically ;) But no, 512GB seems excessive to me for most developer use cases with today's software. In my current job I haven't had a single use case for that much, and there have only been a few instances where 128GB would have been much more productive than what I have.
In a computer engineering class (but nowhere else really), I heard storage can be called "secondary memory"[1] so they're technically correct, without knowing it.
I've not seen it that way, but I've seen memory called "primary storage." Historically storage and memory have been used fairly interchangeably, but when talking about a modern PC, "storage" usually implies disk (or disc, or nvme) and "memory" implies specifically the DRAM.
In french it can also all be called memory. Mémoire vive (lively/quick memory) is for RAM/DRAM etc. Mémoire morte (dead memory) for ROM/eeprom... and Mémoire de masse (mass memory) for storage/disc/tape.
Mémoire morte is for PROM onboard chips in practice where you find bios, firmwares these kind of things. Mémoire de masse would include optical discs, storage in general. I'd say CDs are generally thought of as storage and are interchangeable and you need a CD drive/player to read them, not directly.
