Grams are a measure of mass or weight. I assume we're talking about measuring this flour here on planet earth, within the effects of its gravitational field lol

There must be a minimum non-zero amount of energy required for a given quantity of information.

Okay, but I still don't get how that leads to a standardized measure of energy/mass for a given amount of bytes. That seems to be the premise of the comic.

information has mass independent of its physical representation.

So what is the mass of a byte of 'pure' information? And how do you derive it?

When referencing another person's comment, it can be helpful to link to that comment or the article you mentioned.

I'd also like to point out that many Wikipedia articles, particularly those written by experts on a given scientific subject, tend to be daunting rather than helpful for people not yet familiar with that subject.

Explanations like the one you offered in this comment and the next reply can help make topics more approachable, so I very much appreciate that.

To illustrate my point:

In this case, the article first describes the principle as "pertaining to a lower theoretical limit of energy consumption of computation", which doesn't directly highlight the connection to information storage. The next sentence then mentions "irreversible change in information" and "merging two computational paths", both of which are non-trivial.

From a brief glance at the article on reversible computing linked further on, I gather that "irreversible" here doesn't mean "you can't flip the bit again" but rather something like "you can't deterministically figure out the previous calculation from its result", so the phrase boils down to "storing a piece of information" for our context. The example of "merging computational paths" probably has no particular bearing on the energy value of information either and can be ignored as well.

Figuring out the resulting logic that you so kindly laid out – again, thank you for that! – requires a degree of subject-specific understanding to know what parts of the explanation can be safely ignored.

Of course, experts want to be accurate and tend to think in terms they're familiar with, so I don't fault them for that. The unfortunate result is that their writings are often rather intransparent to laypeople and linking to Wikipedia articles isn't always the best way to convey an understanding.

A pirate ship, I think.

A useful size to package and sell ingredients in, such that the person following a recipe can halve or double the recipe as needed and still use the entire package with no waste.

Would it help if I told you that it was defined as the volume contained in a cube whose length is the distance light travels in a vacuum in 1/166219513th of a second? I imagine it wouldn't. Obviously the litre is superior, it's a much less arbitrary cube defined by the distance light travels in a vacuum in 1/2997924580 seconds.

Something that can be divided by cups I believe

A little more than 4.5 liters. Except a certain nearby country uses a little less than 3.8 liters as their gallon, so we get all sorts of "smaller than a gallon" packages labeled as a gallon, leading to people getting ripped off if they don't realize they're being sold something less than a gallon as if it were a full gallon.

In other words, the gallon is the original shrinkflation unit of measure.

Well then you've lost the whole advantage of base 10. You're buying 2L or 4L containers and dividing them up into 250ml increments, having to do divisions of 8 or 16 like some common imperial peasant, only you're doing it with numbers that have no real relationship with your daily life. I mean, ultimately it's all arbitrary anyway. But when someone says use 2 cups, that's 2 scoops, which seems better to me than having to know that 500ml is 2 scoops.