Hacker News Reader

>due to the replication problem and accessibility the information on it is not durable (at least not as durable as s3)

Paper records can last for hundreds of years without the support of any expensive infrastructure. I wouldn't bet on things that are stored on s3 being available hundreds of years from now.

I think it is called a positive selection bias.

Some of paper lasted for hundreds of years. How much of information didn't survive during that time period?

Information on s3 might not last for hundreds of years, but AFAIK the Voyager satellite didn't ship the information about our specie on paper.

It seems to be default when you count governments and businesses. Those have lasted decades even when they didn't want individual records to on occasion. Whereas, the current systems use individual components that break faster with huge damage loss per square inch provided through services that charge you & try to cause lock-in more over time. The competition for those services is also intense in a way that often results in firms going under with a few surviving.

Whereas, the older tech that lasted so long used simple components on older, process nodes with careful engineering practices. The better ones were also extremely costly with Voyager being a good example at $800+ million.

>Some of paper lasted for hundreds of years. How much of information didn't survive during that time period?

But we're just dealing with simple physical facts about paper here. All you need is a safe place to store it. S3 doesn't run without constant and costly maintenance.

I made my work desk all digital over two years ago. If there is one thing I've learned about paper vs digital, is that nothing can beat the UX of paper at flexibility.

Only once you have an idea what you want to represent, and how you want to represent it, do software tools that rigidly enforce that systematization of your written data become helpful instead of hindrances. I have dozens of different pieces of software for composition, to store data into hundreds of formats, none of which I'm wholly satisfied with.

With paper I know when I run into the limitations of paper, they are either my personal limitations and/or the bounds of what humans have figured out how to do. In software, I can see the design decisions standing between me and what I'd really like to be able to do. I can't move my pen and just do it anyway, I'd have to waste years of my life creating a competing software package.

Even though my overall choice is still to be all digital, I have to face the downsides of that trade-off every goddamn day.

Have you tried OneNote?

Maybe have a Microsoft surface or another tablet with a stylus for when you want to "have that paper feel"

This is why I'm hoping for a surface phone this MWC. Then I could use Full OneNote, outlook, excel etc instead of the current cut down apps.

Paper or Sustainability is a false dichotomy https://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2010/04/14/going-paperless-not...

How bad is it in comparison to the resources used to make your computer/phone?

For most people that resource cost will be sunk. If you note take on paper the chances are you'll still have a computer. The reverse is possibly not true.

I take exception with this item:

> due to the replication problem and accessibility the information on it is not durable (at least not as durable as s3)

We have documents that are thousands of years old, and digital archiving is far from a solved problem. Still, I think going back to paper is insane and this is a total puff piece about people longing for olden days. I'll add one significant item to your list: search! If I had to go back to flipping through endless pages of notebooks to find that one margin entry I made during a customer meeting about some edge case requirement I'd go mad.

Actually, due to pseudo-immutability, scribblings on the dead trees have better durability properties than many digital things.

A durable storage may be less prone to use data due to say, a fire or a flood, but it's way easier to lose data if it's just overwritten. Overwrite a file in-place and it's pretty much gone (good thing most editors don't, but create a temporary file then rename it, so old data still can be scrubbed from HDD). That had happened to my files a few times, but never had such experiences with paper.

Not to say commodity-grade paper may easily outlive commodity-grade HDDs, magnetic tapes or CD-R's. I still have my notes from university, but all the CD-R's I've burned around the same time are unreadable, and I've replaced dying HDDs quite a few times over past years. And paper is probably easier to recycle (although not sure about this).

Designing data storage for countries is not easy, but it is easier to store a Peta Byte of data digitally than on paper.

Nice documentary about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdZxI3nFVJs

>security it terrible (even with all the stamps and hand signatures)

Sure, if you're sending a letter. But as long as you maintain physical control over your paper it's far more secure than anything stored on a computer.

There's a reason Russia's FSB bought typewriters instead of a thought-to-be-secure computer system for the storage of its most sensitive secrets.

Not to mention that the security of your letter increases quite nicely when you use thick paper and seal it shut. Yes, with wax.

No, it's not super-secure, but it stops most casual snooping attempts. Taking off (and reattaching) a seal without breaking it is quite a bit of work if you choose the right wax.