4 ms·

This is very relevant, and perhaps deserves a submission of its own: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/2534391.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/25

This is very relevant, and perhaps deserves a submission of its own: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/2534391.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/2534391.stm """But the snapshot of in the UK in the mid-1980s was stored on two virtually indestructible interactive video discs which could not be read by today's computers. """ I can't find the back story now, but if they weren't able to source a working laser disk reader from a member of the public (which IIRC took quite a bit of effort to find), then accessing this data - digitized in the early 1980s - would have cost a fortune. The inspiration for this project, the 900-year-old Domesday Book, is just as readable today as it was in 1980 (and in 1200 or so). The ability to read data with one's eyes should not be underestimated.

leokennis 5y ago
Remark on the side: This entire page is about 122 kB, is clearly laid out and easy to read. If I check a similar short-ish news item today (https://www.bbc.com/news/business-61185298 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-61185298) my browser (with ad blocker) needs to load 3.8 MB of data (31 times as much) and I can see less of the actual content. Instead of Web3, can we maybe go back to Web1?
- maxwelldone 5y ago
  To add on to your observation, reading mode is even better to look at and loads just shy of 16KB. As an aside, I still don't understand what Web3 aims to solve but I feel Web 2 is good enough if people don't go crazy with js, images, ads and other shenanigans.