> It is written as 1,00,00,000 with the local 2,2,3 style of digit group separators (one lakh is equal to one hundred thousand, and is written as 1,00,000).[1]
> In the Indian system, the next powers of ten are called one lakh, ten lakh, one crore, ten crore, one arab (or one hundred crore), and so on; there are new words for every second power of ten (10^(5 + 2n)): lakh (10^5), crore (10^7), arab (10^9), kharab (10^11), etc. In the Western system, the next powers of ten are called one hundred thousand, one million, ten million, one hundred million, one billion (short scale)/one thousand million (long scale), and so on; in the short scale, there are new words for every third power of ten (10^3n): million (10^6), billion (10^9), trillion (10^12), etc.
> Where? I'm British and old and, apart from in reference books much older than me, I've never seen the long scale used in any context.
Vestiges of it pop up from time to time. It's not really something you can Google directly for, but as an indication, literally the second hit on Google for "thousand million" - a term that only exists due to the long scale, and which is obsolete in the short scale - is an article about a Brexit-related bus ad:
I'm British, and I'm still sore about this one, even though that "recommendation" was before I was born. The long scale is the right one, darnit. Just because the government says otherwise doesn't make it so.
The best thing I can offer is that the word "billion" and greater should be regarded as cursed, ambiguous, and shouldn't be used any more.
It used to be like this in British English (the so-called long scale, where milliard was 10^9 and billion was a million millions, 10^12).
Now, indeed, the split is roughly along the line of English (and Russian, Turkics and Arabic) on the short scale side and everyone else, especially Continental European language speakers on the other.
It's not a universal rule: Brazil is maybe the largest defector from the Continental European group to the short scale, but Canada reinforces the rule by using both, with the choice being dictated by whether you're speaking English or French.
Between? That's odd. In Russian, it goes миллион (million, 10^6), миллиард (milliard, 10^9), триллион (trillion, 10^12), квадриллион (kvadrillion, 10^15), etc in 10^3 increments. "Биллион" isn't a word. It does exist in the macOS dictionary (I just checked) but I've never ever seen or heard it used.
More than half the data there is available on Breached and other similar forums and telegram groups freely. These clueless cops do not know this and just have to make some headlines to keep the budget flowing.
I was curious because it doesn’t sound like a typical Indian name, apparently it’s a nickname for Hyderabad because there’s a large tech industry there
Correction, it is a region of Hyderabad which plays host to a lot of tech...
So the financial district, Gachibowli, hi tech city, madhapur and the other tech areas come under cyberabad limits.
I expect trouble for activists talking about it cause when Aadhar data was available for sale on the darknet the govt threatened to jail anyone publishing info about it
The net number (669 million) looks wrong. India's population is around 1.4 billion, so this would mean a data leak of nearly 1 in 2 Indians. If we further remove children below 14 (30% of India) who are unlikely to have data of their own and others who are completely off any of the data leak sources, the number given here would mean everyone in India has had their data leaked!
The data distribution given in the article seems to add to approximately 7 crores (70 million). I think there is a misplaced decimal somewhere. In all probability it is 6.69 crores (66.9 million). Still very significant, though.
Interesting to see the discussion going towards converting 66.9 cr to Millions.
However, what is the type of data is my curiosity. Is this sensitive data such as PCI or some details such as : Names, Phone Number, Location etc.
If it is sensitive data, how he got that data is the biggest worry.
39 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 93.1 ms ] thread> It is written as 1,00,00,000 with the local 2,2,3 style of digit group separators (one lakh is equal to one hundred thousand, and is written as 1,00,000).[1]
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crore
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_numbering_system#Use_of...
> In the Indian system, the next powers of ten are called one lakh, ten lakh, one crore, ten crore, one arab (or one hundred crore), and so on; there are new words for every second power of ten (10^(5 + 2n)): lakh (10^5), crore (10^7), arab (10^9), kharab (10^11), etc. In the Western system, the next powers of ten are called one hundred thousand, one million, ten million, one hundred million, one billion (short scale)/one thousand million (long scale), and so on; in the short scale, there are new words for every third power of ten (10^3n): million (10^6), billion (10^9), trillion (10^12), etc.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_numbering_system
Surely they mean "in the English system". In German, we have "Milliarde" between "Millionen" and "Billionen", and so on.
In fact, they will end on "-illion" if it's a power of 10^(6n) and on "-illiarde" if it's a power of 10^(6n+3).
For international purposes (america) this “long scale” fall out of use, with he “short scale” being recommended in the U.K. since 1974
I know a lot of people who didn't get that memo, because I still see the long scale with some regularity.
That said, the short scale is much more common overall.
Vestiges of it pop up from time to time. It's not really something you can Google directly for, but as an indication, literally the second hit on Google for "thousand million" - a term that only exists due to the long scale, and which is obsolete in the short scale - is an article about a Brexit-related bus ad:
https://www.independent.ie/world-news/and-finally/brexit-bus...
The best thing I can offer is that the word "billion" and greater should be regarded as cursed, ambiguous, and shouldn't be used any more.
Now, indeed, the split is roughly along the line of English (and Russian, Turkics and Arabic) on the short scale side and everyone else, especially Continental European language speakers on the other. It's not a universal rule: Brazil is maybe the largest defector from the Continental European group to the short scale, but Canada reinforces the rule by using both, with the choice being dictated by whether you're speaking English or French.
Since Russia uses a short-scale system, the word is no longer in use. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_and_short_scales
It's Wikipedia: feel free to click "Edit" and correct/update it.
Meta: the title should be changed, in my opinion.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HITEC_City
https://www.moneylife.in/article/aadhaar-data-breach-largest...
The data distribution given in the article seems to add to approximately 7 crores (70 million). I think there is a misplaced decimal somewhere. In all probability it is 6.69 crores (66.9 million). Still very significant, though.
As you said, this also looks wrong. Maybe double-counting? Same people or IDs getting leaked across multiple platforms?
1.4b currently living people.
Just because people pass away doesn't mean their data stops existing in government records.
I'm not saying the figure is necessarily correct, just that your reason for dismissing it is faulty.
Man, tech reporters are killing me sometimes.
However, what is the type of data is my curiosity. Is this sensitive data such as PCI or some details such as : Names, Phone Number, Location etc. If it is sensitive data, how he got that data is the biggest worry.
Hope there is enough clarity on the type of data.