Thanks. That was what I was looking for.

Here is what I get when I complete the search.

And here’s what I get when I intentionally change the units. Notice the color difference?

I don't think that's the issue, OP also changed from 1 to 2, so I believe they basically want to know the result of 2 * 1024 * 1024, but the issue is that the result is written in scientific notation.
- When you search “megabytes to bytes” the units are correct and the number is one. If you edit the form, the number might not be one and the units might not be correct. Changing units highlights the unit input.
  OP’s ostensible point posting on this community is that searching “megabytes to bytes” gave “mebibytes to bytes” in the calculator but OP’s image shows OP has changed the calculator.
- the issue is that the result is written in scientific notation
  Which honestly is never an issue, only people having forgotten how to fluently read it. 😛

What's wrong? I find this a reasonable result. Most people looking for megabyte to bytes are actually looking for mebibytes, since the mega- prefix is literally just times a million but a lot of programs actually list mebibytes as "megabytes".

Sorry, I changed it manually. I should have cropped out the search.

GPT gave me this yesterday:

To convert 500 KiB/s to a more common unit like megabits per second (Mbps):

Understand the conversion factors:
- 1 KiB (Kibibyte) = 1024 bytes
- 1 byte = 8 bits
Calculate the speed in bits per second:
- 500 KiB/s = 500 * 1024 bytes/s = 512000 bytes/s
- 512000 bytes/s * 8 bits/byte = 4096000 bits/s
Convert bits per second to megabits per second:
- 1 Mbps = 1,000,000 bits/s (for simplicity, although technically 1 Mbps = 1,048,576 bits/s, the simpler metric is usually used for network speeds)
- 4096000 bits/s / 1,000,000 = 4.096 Mbps

So, 500 KiB/s is approximately 4.1 Mbps.

I was like, I just wanted the answer!

That's for its own benefit. It has to talk through it (or alternatively code through it) to work out the answer. S'just showing its work.

?? It's correct, what's the issue here?

Maybe the OP can't read scientific notation?
- Sounds like a skill issue
It does not give the exact answer, only an approximation.
- Ah OK, good point. I tend to forget that 'good enough' is not what other people might want in their measurements precision