4 ms·

A lot less time than you would think. There are a ton of devices that don't use magnetic memory like SSD and SD cards. So although a lot of data would be gone,

A lot less time than you would think. There are a ton of devices that don't use magnetic memory like SSD and SD cards. So although a lot of data would be gone, the tools to build everything back up would still be intact. Devices like CNC machins usually use SD cards and other forms of non-magnetic storage. Biggest issue would be controlling public unrest until you can restore infinistructure. After that it would be business as usual after not too long. But if the storm is powerful enough to destroy actual chips and systems it would be very very difficult to recover.

thefz 6y ago
Yes and let's not forget those memories stored in data vaults underground or somewhat magnetically shielded. Mine is just an exercise for the imagination rather than a technically correct scenario. But to get all these memories working again you need a power grid, to operate which you need all those memories unless isolating sections of the grid and powering them with renewables somewhat. In a no-more-computers-unless-we-rebuild-them scenario we would have to rush to both get to save all our knowledge somewhere and to preserve the "cold" storage we already have such as written word.
dublin 6y ago
A bigger problem is that there are fewer and fewer living engineers that actually understand things well enough from first principles to be able to reconstruct a technological society. And the social disintegration (think Minneapolois and Portland on steroids) that would follow could make it quite difficult to even get the surviving systems up and running again. Also, note that very little of the past 20 years has been well documented on paper...
- hilbert42 6y ago
  "...there are fewer and fewer living engineers that actually understand things well enough from first principles to be able to reconstruct a technological society" I think that's either true or partially true due to (vertical) specialization that's so prevalent these days and also for other reasons some of which are cultural. You qualify your comment by saying that 'there are fewer and fewer living engineers'. Here, your inclusion of the word 'living' is interesting. By that, you are not only implying that once engineers could do so (and their modern day counterparts cannot) but also that modern engineers aren't taught first principles—at least not to the extent that they once were. This is a bold statement, why do you think this true?
  - thefz 6y ago
    > By that, you are not only implying that once engineers could do so (and their modern day counterparts cannot) but also that modern engineers aren't taught first principles—at least not to the extent that they once were. I think what he means is that complexity today has scaled so much that a new graduate would have a hard time to be able to do and remember and understand everything. We are so vertically specialized that I doubt an electrical engineer could, as an example, build a basic computer fast enough and use it to code a functioning basic web server from scratch. At the start of 1900, not so much.
    - hilbert42 6y ago
      Yeah, right. I was trying to draw him out on that point because I reckon it's an important one that we often brush under the carpet (as there's no easy/practical solution). It seems to me that the sheer volume of information today poses special problems for training and I reckon we've not yet found the ideal structure to educate people in ways so that they are taught a hierarchy of information that decreases in relevance as it moves out and away from the core material. The problem is that every teacher (and university syllabus) will have a different view about what is relevant and what is not. Essentially, we don't have a theory about what's relevant in other fields of endeavor and how to connect or relate that information to the core material let alone implement teaching it in practice. I've been around a while now so I've reasonable experience in my work—and I try to keep abreast of my subjects—but still I often shock myself when I come across information that's close (or relevant) to the core material that I ought to damn-well know but I do not. Somehow, I've missed out learning it. What's even more troubling is that after coming to grips with this 'new' material my view (and understanding) of the core material either alters and or is improved (methinks shades of the Dunning-Kruger effect have been at work here—and that's a real worry). Precious few of us have the intellect, perfect recall and ability to drill down and instinctively search far and wide across other fields then vacuum up every skerrick of information about a subject that's relevant—which the amazing John von Neumann was capable of doing effortlessly—so I don't have a sensible suggestion about what we ought to do to solve the problem. Perhaps eventually AI will come to the rescue. Let me give you an illustration of this. A few years back I was bemoaning the fact to the head of a university physics department that very few people who I was employing to work in my department had a broad cross-section of general knowledge of relevant/related subjects. He immediately recognized the problem and retorted with the following example. During his evaluation for a PhD, a candidate whose study was on LEDs (Light Emitting Diodes) was asked a general question† about how a junction transistor worked and he was completely flummoxed; essentially, he didn't have a clue! Frankly, this revelation amazed me; I was almost speechless. I claim no special knowledge of LEDs and junction transistors over that which most others in my field would know but do I know enough semiconductor theory to know that he should have been able to field a reasonable answer. I simply do not understand how he managed to get though four years of undergraduate physics and electrical engineering (electronics theory) let alone his PhD research and not have some knowledge of the matter. The fact that at a well established highly respected university that he even managed to get to the stage where he was being evaluated for a PhD amplifies the fact that we've a serious problem with educating specialists. Tragically, that facetious saying that 'these days, PhDs know more and more about less and less', may have some ring of truth to it. (Yes, I know, there are many exceptions and there are many brilliant people still out there—much cleverer than I am—but you get my gist.) † I recall a similar instance with a university exam paper where third year physics students were asked a very short 'reality-check' question: 'Derive F=ma' and a significant number either gave the wrong answer or omitted answering the question altogether. Clearly, teaching students to see both the woods and the trees remains a significant problem.
hilbert42 6y ago
"But if the storm is powerful enough to destroy actual chips and systems it would be very very difficult to recover." That's not out of the bounds of possibility, during the solar storm of 1859, aka the Carrington event, there were multiple reports of electric sparks coming from telegraph line and terminal equipment and of Morse code operators receiving electric shocks from their keys, etc. Clearly, modern RFI/EMR shielding would protect much of the susceptible solid-electronics but I'd suggest that with such a high level of induced energy there nevertheless would be huge and widespread destruction of poorly protected/shielded equipment, especially so domestic electronics (which would fall into that category). Moreover, it's likely that most satellites would fail or be severely damaged. I'm somewhat surprised that I've not yet seen any authoritative modeling of the effect that a solar storm the size of the Carrington event would have on the world's electrical and electronic systems (if anyone knows of any references I'd be grateful if they'd post them here). Perhaps the reason is that if any do exist then they would likely be classified under national security. I suppose that's sort of obvious, isn't it?

thefz 6y ago

Yes and let's not forget those memories stored in data vaults underground or somewhat magnetically shielded. Mine is just an exercise for the imagination rather than a technically correct scenario. But to get all these memories working again you need a power grid, to operate which you need all those memories unless isolating sections of the grid and powering them with renewables somewhat. In a no-more-computers-unless-we-rebuild-them scenario we would have to rush to both get to save all our knowledge somewhere and to preserve the "cold" storage we already have such as written word.

dublin 6y ago

A bigger problem is that there are fewer and fewer living engineers that actually understand things well enough from first principles to be able to reconstruct a technological society. And the social disintegration (think Minneapolois and Portland on steroids) that would follow could make it quite difficult to even get the surviving systems up and running again. Also, note that very little of the past 20 years has been well documented on paper...

hilbert42 6y ago
"...there are fewer and fewer living engineers that actually understand things well enough from first principles to be able to reconstruct a technological society" I think that's either true or partially true due to (vertical) specialization that's so prevalent these days and also for other reasons some of which are cultural. You qualify your comment by saying that 'there are fewer and fewer living engineers'. Here, your inclusion of the word 'living' is interesting. By that, you are not only implying that once engineers could do so (and their modern day counterparts cannot) but also that modern engineers aren't taught first principles—at least not to the extent that they once were. This is a bold statement, why do you think this true?
- thefz 6y ago
  > By that, you are not only implying that once engineers could do so (and their modern day counterparts cannot) but also that modern engineers aren't taught first principles—at least not to the extent that they once were. I think what he means is that complexity today has scaled so much that a new graduate would have a hard time to be able to do and remember and understand everything. We are so vertically specialized that I doubt an electrical engineer could, as an example, build a basic computer fast enough and use it to code a functioning basic web server from scratch. At the start of 1900, not so much.
  - hilbert42 6y ago
    Yeah, right. I was trying to draw him out on that point because I reckon it's an important one that we often brush under the carpet (as there's no easy/practical solution). It seems to me that the sheer volume of information today poses special problems for training and I reckon we've not yet found the ideal structure to educate people in ways so that they are taught a hierarchy of information that decreases in relevance as it moves out and away from the core material. The problem is that every teacher (and university syllabus) will have a different view about what is relevant and what is not. Essentially, we don't have a theory about what's relevant in other fields of endeavor and how to connect or relate that information to the core material let alone implement teaching it in practice. I've been around a while now so I've reasonable experience in my work—and I try to keep abreast of my subjects—but still I often shock myself when I come across information that's close (or relevant) to the core material that I ought to damn-well know but I do not. Somehow, I've missed out learning it. What's even more troubling is that after coming to grips with this 'new' material my view (and understanding) of the core material either alters and or is improved (methinks shades of the Dunning-Kruger effect have been at work here—and that's a real worry). Precious few of us have the intellect, perfect recall and ability to drill down and instinctively search far and wide across other fields then vacuum up every skerrick of information about a subject that's relevant—which the amazing John von Neumann was capable of doing effortlessly—so I don't have a sensible suggestion about what we ought to do to solve the problem. Perhaps eventually AI will come to the rescue. Let me give you an illustration of this. A few years back I was bemoaning the fact to the head of a university physics department that very few people who I was employing to work in my department had a broad cross-section of general knowledge of relevant/related subjects. He immediately recognized the problem and retorted with the following example. During his evaluation for a PhD, a candidate whose study was on LEDs (Light Emitting Diodes) was asked a general question† about how a junction transistor worked and he was completely flummoxed; essentially, he didn't have a clue! Frankly, this revelation amazed me; I was almost speechless. I claim no special knowledge of LEDs and junction transistors over that which most others in my field would know but do I know enough semiconductor theory to know that he should have been able to field a reasonable answer. I simply do not understand how he managed to get though four years of undergraduate physics and electrical engineering (electronics theory) let alone his PhD research and not have some knowledge of the matter. The fact that at a well established highly respected university that he even managed to get to the stage where he was being evaluated for a PhD amplifies the fact that we've a serious problem with educating specialists. Tragically, that facetious saying that 'these days, PhDs know more and more about less and less', may have some ring of truth to it. (Yes, I know, there are many exceptions and there are many brilliant people still out there—much cleverer than I am—but you get my gist.) † I recall a similar instance with a university exam paper where third year physics students were asked a very short 'reality-check' question: 'Derive F=ma' and a significant number either gave the wrong answer or omitted answering the question altogether. Clearly, teaching students to see both the woods and the trees remains a significant problem.

hilbert42 6y ago

"But if the storm is powerful enough to destroy actual chips and systems it would be very very difficult to recover." That's not out of the bounds of possibility, during the solar storm of 1859, aka the Carrington event, there were multiple reports of electric sparks coming from telegraph line and terminal equipment and of Morse code operators receiving electric shocks from their keys, etc. Clearly, modern RFI/EMR shielding would protect much of the susceptible solid-electronics but I'd suggest that with such a high level of induced energy there nevertheless would be huge and widespread destruction of poorly protected/shielded equipment, especially so domestic electronics (which would fall into that category). Moreover, it's likely that most satellites would fail or be severely damaged. I'm somewhat surprised that I've not yet seen any authoritative modeling of the effect that a solar storm the size of the Carrington event would have on the world's electrical and electronic systems (if anyone knows of any references I'd be grateful if they'd post them here). Perhaps the reason is that if any do exist then they would likely be classified under national security. I suppose that's sort of obvious, isn't it?