I of course wouldn't want to store my data in there today, I wouldn't even trust that I get it back reliably because DNA reading comes with a relatively big err

I of course wouldn't want to store my data in there today, I wouldn't even trust that I get it back reliably because DNA reading comes with a relatively big error rate for storage purposes (of course error correction can mitigate that). But it would be cool if the technology progresses. All technology, including disks, magnetic tapes, and new alternatives. Whether DNA is viable in the end or not, I don't know. I do know that tech always has been progressing and new alternatives are sometimes found, and that I do see a use for more storage. But an argument whether DNA is a viable option in the future or not would have to say technically what the issue of DNA is with future tech. Whether it's more expensive today, or that there's no need for more data today, are not really arguments against it. I do not intend to be arguing for snake oil or anything here though. If "DNA storage" is in a similar category of "perpetual motion machines" and "cars that run on tap water" then count me out. I don't even know how our comments ended up being like arguing against each other. The only thing really I didn't agree with in the original comment was "Because, storage isn't something we lack", because I do find it lacking, both at home and in the cloud.