“So they told me that, according to the most advanced theories and techniques in every field, based on extensive theoretical research and experimentation, through analysis and comparison of multiple proposals, they did find a way to preserve information for about one hundred million years. And they emphasized that this was the only method known to be practicable: carving words into stone”
Will we finally have a data storage technology that will surpass M-Discs?
Great! Now release it to market with reasonable price!
But I don’t actually need it.
you don’t
Yes, please let the others know
No.
Guess I’ll have to buy the ‘White’ album again.
From the article:
As intriguing as the idea is, we have to admit it smacks of a publicity stunt more than an earnest act of preservation. Even if the data is secure, are the robots the new points of failure? What’s to protect them from fires, floods, EMPs, and all the other threats? What about the readers, which are delicate lasers driven by algorithms? In all likelihood, any explorers in the year 12,000 that might stumble onto the remains of the Global Music Vault would just display it in a museum as a collection of crystal coasters.
I was asking myself similar questions to these, alongside even more basic details like, “What if the future computer systems simply aren’t compatible with the old filesystems, thus indicating nothing as being present on the storage media (if it’s even recognized as storage media to test)?” It’s the deeply fascinating problem all long-term information storage/transmission faces regarding future comprehensibility.
I would think that you could leave a Rosetta Stone with directions on how the data is stored and read. It wouldn’t take much, I think. “These glass things contain information, here’s how it is encoded. Here’s the requirements on reading these”. You could start off simple and have a rudimentary one that can be deciphered by hand that describes how to make a device that can quickly pull information from a few others that give directions on how to build another device to read the high capacity ones. You don’t need a specific filesystem or computer to read it, you just need to know how to decipher it and that it IS data stored in a certain way, not just cool looking glass art.
A similar problem facing humanity, is what to write on the outside of storage sites for spent nuclear fuel rods. Failing to properly pass on potentially lifesaving information to the future of humanity can be deadly. Let’s hope there won’t be any vital information on Microsoft’s new glass storage without corning gorilla certification.
Realistically I think this will only be used for short (sub 100 years) storage, or archives like a microfiche archive that are in continuous use.
There are quite a few use cases where a government or company might be obligated to keep data for long periods.
I’m curious about the 10,000 year claim, does that apply to the full plate, or is that average time to fail per some unit of data?
Since I am sure error correction code is used, it is one and the same.
More importantly than the filesystem formats, for media I hope they’re using codecs that are as simple and as close to raw as possible, eg: PCM and BMP. Chances are pretty high that with something like PCM data, even if nobody had any idea what it was, at some point somebody would stumble upon turning it into audio. I can’t imagine ever successfully decoding HEVC data without a specification.
“What if the future computer systems simply aren’t compatible with the old filesystems, thus indicating nothing as being present on the storage media (if it’s even recognized as storage media to test)?”
We’ve reconstructed archaic languages that no living person speaks from fragments of written records, I find it unlikely that we’ll be completely unable to reverse engineer an ancient file system architecture - especially since the most likely course for someone actually reading one of these 1000’s of years in the future is for the reader to be from a more technologically advanced civilization.
Think of what modern archeologists would give to have the equivalent of a wikipedia archive from 10,000 years ago - imagine the colossal amounts of grant funding that would be thrown at the problem if we even suspected such a thing was within reach.
Of course all the other issues about keeping the actual system safe for 10k years are totally valid, but you have to start somewhere, and getting a data storage system that can last that long even in perfect conditions is the necessary first step.
We’ve reconstructed archaic languages that no living person speaks from fragments of written records, I find it unlikely that we’ll be completely unable to reverse engineer an ancient file system architecture - especially since the most likely course for someone actually reading one of these 1000’s of years in the future is for the reader to be from a more technologically advanced civilization.
I saw another reply mention similar, and I see where you’re both coming from, but seeing another reply in this vein has encouraged me to ask the question the other reply inspired which is: what if you lack the fragments needed to reverse engineer/reconstruct a means to access the information?
Chances are slim, and to be clear here, I’m by no means knocking this development, as I find it really exciting, but I also enjoy thinking through some of the different potential points of failure. Not from a cynical/pessimistic perspective, but because it’s a compelling challenge and puzzle. How much else alongside this specific media may need to survive so that it may remain accessible, directly or indirectly, y’know?
That’s as cool and fun to consider as the new storage media itself to me! Come to think of it, maybe I really should look into some kind of archival/museum jobs considering that…
what if you lack the fragments needed to reverse engineer/reconstruct a means to access the information?
Well that’s a different question, because now it sounds like you’re assuming that significant data loss will occur before it’s read. If the storage unit itself is damaged in the meantime to where it’s data is corrupted beyond recovery, then yes - that’s a potential total loss scenario. Assuming however that the storage unit remains intact, I don’t see how a dedicated team of smart individuals couldn’t handle it, unless their technology is somehow inferior to ours.
It’s also worth considering that this storage unit probably won’t be their very first interactions with modern data storage systems. This may or may not be their first interaction with a data storage system that was actually written from modern times, but unless we have a total technological collapse in the intervening 10,000 years, chances are they’ll have records from our time that have been copied over however many thousands of times to make it there. Afterall, to use a much less extreme example, I don’t need to get my hands on a CD-Rom or Floppy Disk burned in 1991 to get a copy of Linux 0.01, it’s been copied over and over through the years and is now available for download online. Data will surely degrade over time, and large chunks will get lost as people stop copying things they think are no longer important, but I feel pretty confident in the idea that enough pieces will make it that far that these scientists (techno-archeologists?) won’t be starting from scratch
Might as well ask what’s indicative of stone tablets from millennia ago being data to us now? These things aren’t discovered and studied in a vacuum. They operate within context - where the items were found, their similarity to other better understood things, known history of data storage, etc etc.
Given enough time and disruption, sure, all context could be lost, but if that’s the case, I’d assume figuring out what the weird glass cube thing is would be the least of their problems.
So this new storage technology will probably outlast humanity since there will be no future with global warming and the late stage of capitalism.
