3 ms·

Based on the primary sources I’ve been able to piece together, the more accurate (but far less sensational) quote would be: "23 Exabytes of information was rec

Based on the primary sources I’ve been able to piece together, the more accurate (but far less sensational) quote would be: "23 Exabytes of information was recorded and replicated in 2002. We now record and transfer that much information every 7 days." Call me crazy, but that sounds every bit just as sensational to me. Seems like all this article is doing is getting overly picking with some throwaway oft-repeated trivia stat. Who cares what the exact numbers are? The purpose of the statement remains the same.

anonymous246 16y ago
Oh really? Schmidt's claim overstates reality by 5000 times and you don't care? Link is to an (awesome) online calculator showing how I arrived at this. http://instacalc.com/?d=&c=ZGF5c19zaW5jZV9oaXN0b3J5X3N0YXJ0ID0gNTAwMCozNjV8ZGF5c19pbl8yMDAyID0gMzY1fG51bV9kYXlzX2Zvcl81X2V4YWJ5dGVzX3RvZGF5ID0gN3xzY2htaWR0X2dyb3d0aCA9IGRheXNfc2luY2VfaGlzdG9yeV9zdGFydCAvIG51bV9kYXlzX2Zvcl81X2V4YWJ5dGVzX3RvZGF5fHJlYWxfZ3Jvd3RoID0gZGF5c19pbl8yMDAyIC8gbnVtX2RheXNfZm9yXzVfZXhhYnl0ZXNfdG9kYXl8c2NobWlkdF9leGFnZ2VyYXRpb24gPSBzY2htaWR0X2dyb3d0aCAvIHJlYWxfZ3Jvd3RofGV4YWdlcnJhdGlvbl9vcmRlcnNfb2ZfbWFnbml0dWRlID0gM3x8fA&s=ssssssssss&v=0.9 http://instacalc.com/?d=&c=ZGF5c19zaW5jZV9oaXN0b3J5X3N0Y...
- burgerbrain 16y ago
  Yeah, that's right. These are numbers incomprehensibly big. Nobody can even begin to mentally picture these in a reasonable fashion. The only part of the statement that is really important is the meaning, not the details of the numbers. That meaning is "we are creating shittons of data really really fast, faster than ever before". If you're getting hung up on the accuracy of the numbers used to express this, then you're missing the point, and I wonder why you don't have something better to do than get worked up about it... EDIT: Furthermore, according to the "more accurate" statement form the article, we're creating 23 Exabytes in 7 days, not 5. Read it again: "_23 Exabytes_ of information was recorded and replicated in 2002. We now record and transfer _that much_ information every _7 days_."
  - turboneat 16y ago
    To me, the difference between "23 exabytes every 7 days" and "5 exabytes every 3 days" is pretty irrelevant. I think a better quote would be "By 2003, mankind had generated a shitload of information. Now we generate a shitload every day."
    - burgerbrain 16y ago
      Exactly, the entire point of the quote was to get across the absurd magnitude of growth that we're seeing in a way that anybody can understand. If you care enough about numbers and can figure out how to say it more accurately... more power to you I guess? Doesn't change the effectiveness of the quote though.
    - anonymous246 16y ago
      Using shitload as a unit of data: sarcasm or serious?
      - burgerbrain 16y ago
        It's not a unit, it's a magnitude or count. Used in similar situations as "a lot". It's neither 'sarcastic' nor 'serious', but rather 'casual'.
- wybo 16y ago
  Given a much smaller world-population during most of history, and much less information transfer (other than f2f), I think your estimate is off by at least a factor 100 (rough guess) more than Schmidt's. Sorry to be nitpicking... :)
- anonymous246 16y ago
  For those who don't want to bother with clicking that link: real growth is 50X, Schmidt's claims was 260,000X.
  - burgerbrain 16y ago
    Just now bothered to look at your calculator thing, since I maintain the actual numbers involved are pointless details. However... The there was a 50x growth between now and the single year of 2002. Schmidt's quote stated 260,000X growth between now and the average of all data created in the past 5000 years. In order to create an actual comparison of Schmidt Rate vs Real Rate, you need a 'real' number for the amount of data from recorded history until 2002, something that nobody has volunteered. Nobody is debating that Schmidt's numbers were inaccurate, and the number he provides for this is almost certainly wrong, however we don't know by how much. Extrapolating out from data from the single year of 2002 is flawed; it is foolish to think that the growth rates of data in 2002CE and 2002BCE are the same without data to suggest so. If we accept that there has been a constant rate of growth of data creation, then your conclusion is valid.
BrandonM 16y ago
I understand what you're saying, but I think you're marginalizing what was a pretty solid article. The author heard a questionable figure, sought the source for it, and reconciled the quote against reality. As a lesson in thinking for yourself as opposed to just believing what you hear -- something people are not often accustomed to doing -- I thought it was good. That said, the title could have been much improved.
ErrantX 16y ago
I think it's a really great piece. It gets you to think about the reliability of quotes like that, it makes you consider realistic statistics and research, and it points out that the numbers are still pretty sensational. It's not so much nit picky IMO as light heartedly correcting the facts. I think that counts as intellectually stimulating :)

anonymous246 16y ago

Oh really? Schmidt's claim overstates reality by 5000 times and you don't care? Link is to an (awesome) online calculator showing how I arrived at this. http://instacalc.com/?d=&c=ZGF5c19zaW5jZV9oaXN0b3J5X3N0YXJ0ID0gNTAwMCozNjV8ZGF5c19pbl8yMDAyID0gMzY1fG51bV9kYXlzX2Zvcl81X2V4YWJ5dGVzX3RvZGF5ID0gN3xzY2htaWR0X2dyb3d0aCA9IGRheXNfc2luY2VfaGlzdG9yeV9zdGFydCAvIG51bV9kYXlzX2Zvcl81X2V4YWJ5dGVzX3RvZGF5fHJlYWxfZ3Jvd3RoID0gZGF5c19pbl8yMDAyIC8gbnVtX2RheXNfZm9yXzVfZXhhYnl0ZXNfdG9kYXl8c2NobWlkdF9leGFnZ2VyYXRpb24gPSBzY2htaWR0X2dyb3d0aCAvIHJlYWxfZ3Jvd3RofGV4YWdlcnJhdGlvbl9vcmRlcnNfb2ZfbWFnbml0dWRlID0gM3x8fA&s=ssssssssss&v=0.9 http://instacalc.com/?d=&c=ZGF5c19zaW5jZV9oaXN0b3J5X3N0Y...

burgerbrain 16y ago
Yeah, that's right. These are numbers incomprehensibly big. Nobody can even begin to mentally picture these in a reasonable fashion. The only part of the statement that is really important is the meaning, not the details of the numbers. That meaning is "we are creating shittons of data really really fast, faster than ever before". If you're getting hung up on the accuracy of the numbers used to express this, then you're missing the point, and I wonder why you don't have something better to do than get worked up about it... EDIT: Furthermore, according to the "more accurate" statement form the article, we're creating 23 Exabytes in 7 days, not 5. Read it again: "_23 Exabytes_ of information was recorded and replicated in 2002. We now record and transfer _that much_ information every _7 days_."
- turboneat 16y ago
  To me, the difference between "23 exabytes every 7 days" and "5 exabytes every 3 days" is pretty irrelevant. I think a better quote would be "By 2003, mankind had generated a shitload of information. Now we generate a shitload every day."
  - burgerbrain 16y ago
    Exactly, the entire point of the quote was to get across the absurd magnitude of growth that we're seeing in a way that anybody can understand. If you care enough about numbers and can figure out how to say it more accurately... more power to you I guess? Doesn't change the effectiveness of the quote though.
  - anonymous246 16y ago
    Using shitload as a unit of data: sarcasm or serious?
    - burgerbrain 16y ago
      It's not a unit, it's a magnitude or count. Used in similar situations as "a lot". It's neither 'sarcastic' nor 'serious', but rather 'casual'.
wybo 16y ago
Given a much smaller world-population during most of history, and much less information transfer (other than f2f), I think your estimate is off by at least a factor 100 (rough guess) more than Schmidt's. Sorry to be nitpicking... :)
anonymous246 16y ago
For those who don't want to bother with clicking that link: real growth is 50X, Schmidt's claims was 260,000X.
- burgerbrain 16y ago
  Just now bothered to look at your calculator thing, since I maintain the actual numbers involved are pointless details. However... The there was a 50x growth between now and the single year of 2002. Schmidt's quote stated 260,000X growth between now and the average of all data created in the past 5000 years. In order to create an actual comparison of Schmidt Rate vs Real Rate, you need a 'real' number for the amount of data from recorded history until 2002, something that nobody has volunteered. Nobody is debating that Schmidt's numbers were inaccurate, and the number he provides for this is almost certainly wrong, however we don't know by how much. Extrapolating out from data from the single year of 2002 is flawed; it is foolish to think that the growth rates of data in 2002CE and 2002BCE are the same without data to suggest so. If we accept that there has been a constant rate of growth of data creation, then your conclusion is valid.

BrandonM 16y ago

I understand what you're saying, but I think you're marginalizing what was a pretty solid article. The author heard a questionable figure, sought the source for it, and reconciled the quote against reality. As a lesson in thinking for yourself as opposed to just believing what you hear -- something people are not often accustomed to doing -- I thought it was good. That said, the title could have been much improved.

ErrantX 16y ago

I think it's a really great piece. It gets you to think about the reliability of quotes like that, it makes you consider realistic statistics and research, and it points out that the numbers are still pretty sensational. It's not so much nit picky IMO as light heartedly correcting the facts. I think that counts as intellectually stimulating :)