- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/36672698
Source: https://xkcd.com/1683/
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/36672698
Source: https://xkcd.com/1683/
Well, for thot pics, there’s always more jpeg. For everything else, there’s lossless data formats.
Even with jpeg, you only lose data each time it’s encoded. If you save the file instead of taking a screenshot, the quality remains the same.
That said, I don’t know if there’s a digital storage method widely used that will last longer than a book without some sort of active aspect to the storage (like copying the files to a new medium every now and then).
I think punch cards are one that can, but they aren’t used much anymore due to poor density and speed, plus being susceptible to literal bugs. It’s possible to encode digital information into carved rock, but that would also have density issues (higher density means less reliability because the amount of damage required to make it unreadable is lower).
I think there’s a good chance that a lot of the knowledge we have today could be lost entirely if civilization collapses to a certain degree just due to how we store it.
We do have some backups.
https://archiveprogram.github.com/arctic-vault/
We have stone tablets from back when humans invebted written language. I vote we back up critical data using this method.
Yeah, though it has that issue with data density. The denser the data, the more likely it will become degraded from erosion or chipping.
Also if there’s a discontinuity between our civilization and a future one, the denser the data, the less likely any future civilization would discover it’s there, even if it still has enough integrity to be read.