> That's roughly sufficient for universe-scale problems at the precision of dust motes. It's Friday here, so let's have a bit of fun. Given: * a limit on the size of the visible universe approximately 100 billion light years in diameter * household dust size approximately in the range of 1 to 100 µm [[Source]][1] * 34 decimal digits in the significand for Decimal128 [[Source]][2] Then: At approximately 10 trillion kilometers to the light-year, 100 × 10<sup>12</sup> ly ≅ 10<sup>27</sup> km ≅ 10<sup>30</sup> m ≅ 10<sup>36</sup> µm. Therefore, we can precisely localize large (100 µm) dust particles at this scale. Oh, and having done all of this, we still have a −6143 to +6144 power-of-10 scaling constant in addition to all of this, so a quick estimate says we could instead accurately describe the position of oxygen atoms at the scale of a galaxy, or the position of individual quarks at the scale of [the cosmic neighborhood][3]. Now please explain again why you need Decimal128? 😜 [1]: https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/particle-sizes-d_934.html [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal128_floating-point_format [3]: http://www.solstation.com/stars/s10ly.htm