> I think future archeologists will struggle with the opposite, with us leaving a gigantic amount of data behind Or it's the opposite, because most of the elec

> I think future archeologists will struggle with the opposite, with us leaving a gigantic amount of data behind Or it's the opposite, because most of the electronic records will be lost. Depends on how far ahead you look for those future archeologists. If you want to keep stuff for millennia you need clay tablets and stone, not USB sticks and magnetic tapes. Even microfilm - used extensively only a decades ago - is not all that durable (although it's better than electronic storage - https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/07/microfilm-lasts-half-a-millennium/565643/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/07/micro...). Never mind anyone trying to read some PDF a thousand years from now, even if they somehow have the bits and bytes. Lots of articles about this, just one random example link: https://www.historyextra.com/period/20th-century/will-history-survive-the-digital-age/ https://www.historyextra.com/period/20th-century/will-histor... Some think at least the important stuff is safe - but the problem is, unlike a stone stele, or a clay tablet by chance stored under just the right conditions, electronic records need to be actively managed and occasionally transferred to new media. It won't survive the millennia without active intervention. So the idea that our important historic electronic data is safe rests on the assumption that there will always be librarians who take care of save storage and occasional replication, and maintenance of the needed equipment. I think that's quite optimistic.