4 ms·

Most people have no use for the things their parents or grandparents found sentimental or worth keeping, so they toss it.

shiroiushi 2y ago
This is true, but depending on what the data is, hopefully that stuff could be donated to a library if the stuff lasted long enough to go into the public domain. Of course, if it's family videos, no one's going to care about that crap, but if it's pirated movies or whatever, some of that stuff might not be available otherwise. Just look at all the classic games from the 70s-80s that would be gone forever if people hadn't copied and distributed them.
- jwagenet 2y ago
  Based on the whole recent VCF ordeal: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40005150 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40005150 , donating any of this crap to a library or anyone else and it actually being used is a pipe dream. These organizations don’t have the time or space to process anything, assuming they don’t have it anyway. Likely only the now deceased owner knew that they had xyz special material. Their kin processing their attic or garage likely don’t.
  - eru 2y ago
    Those were physical artefacts. They are a lot harder to handle, and don't get any smaller as time progresses. Here we are talking about data.
- eru 2y ago
  Why would people not care about family photos? All the stuff in the background is super useful for historians. Keep in mind: old data is tiny by contemporary standards. So your grandchildren can just take the few TiB in your personal collection, and stick it on a futuristic thumb-drive somewhere. Barely takes up any space.
  - shiroiushi 2y ago
    >Why would people not care about family photos? All the stuff in the background is super useful for historians. That's a good point actually. Most people aren't going to care at all, but historians might, plus also movie-makers: it would be really useful to them to see real photos and footage from the far past.
    - eru 2y ago
      Even just from one or a few decades ago is super useful. Note also how typically the ads are the most fascinating parts of old media, be that newspapers or even TV recordings. All while contemporary arts are universally seen as annoying.
      - shiroiushi 2y ago
        >Note also how typically the ads are the most fascinating parts of old media, be that newspapers or even TV recordings. All while contemporary arts are universally seen as annoying. Ads are all annoying, contemporary or not. The old ones are only interesting because they're novel, and you're not watching them every day. You can see the same thing by traveling (or better yet, moving) to a foreign country and watching the TV ads there: they'll be interesting or entertaining for a few minutes, but will quickly become annoying after the novelty wears off. Ads in old Computer Shopper magazines are interesting to people here because they're interested in computers and computer history, but they're not interesting to other people. But again, after you've looked through an old magazine full of these things, you'll tire of them. As for ads being more interesting than "old media", that depends on the media. If it's classic old movies like Hitchcock thrillers or whatever, then definitely not. Movies like that are interesting and entertaining to watch even today. No one in their right mind wants to watch 2 hours of nonstop TV ads from the 1950s, by comparison. Other stuff, it really depends on your interest, and how useful the information is to you now. Are you just satisfying curiosity about history? Or trying to solve some kind of problem that requires historical knowledge? Whatever you're researching is probably more interesting than the ads, though those might be interesting on their own too, to an extent.
eru 2y ago
I found those things quite fascinating, and if it's as small as a few hard-drives (and not something as big as eg a car), I would definitely keep it around.

shiroiushi 2y ago

This is true, but depending on what the data is, hopefully that stuff could be donated to a library if the stuff lasted long enough to go into the public domain. Of course, if it's family videos, no one's going to care about that crap, but if it's pirated movies or whatever, some of that stuff might not be available otherwise. Just look at all the classic games from the 70s-80s that would be gone forever if people hadn't copied and distributed them.

jwagenet 2y ago
Based on the whole recent VCF ordeal: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40005150 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40005150 , donating any of this crap to a library or anyone else and it actually being used is a pipe dream. These organizations don’t have the time or space to process anything, assuming they don’t have it anyway. Likely only the now deceased owner knew that they had xyz special material. Their kin processing their attic or garage likely don’t.
- eru 2y ago
  Those were physical artefacts. They are a lot harder to handle, and don't get any smaller as time progresses. Here we are talking about data.
eru 2y ago
Why would people not care about family photos? All the stuff in the background is super useful for historians. Keep in mind: old data is tiny by contemporary standards. So your grandchildren can just take the few TiB in your personal collection, and stick it on a futuristic thumb-drive somewhere. Barely takes up any space.
- shiroiushi 2y ago
  >Why would people not care about family photos? All the stuff in the background is super useful for historians. That's a good point actually. Most people aren't going to care at all, but historians might, plus also movie-makers: it would be really useful to them to see real photos and footage from the far past.
  - eru 2y ago
    Even just from one or a few decades ago is super useful. Note also how typically the ads are the most fascinating parts of old media, be that newspapers or even TV recordings. All while contemporary arts are universally seen as annoying.
    - shiroiushi 2y ago
      >Note also how typically the ads are the most fascinating parts of old media, be that newspapers or even TV recordings. All while contemporary arts are universally seen as annoying. Ads are all annoying, contemporary or not. The old ones are only interesting because they're novel, and you're not watching them every day. You can see the same thing by traveling (or better yet, moving) to a foreign country and watching the TV ads there: they'll be interesting or entertaining for a few minutes, but will quickly become annoying after the novelty wears off. Ads in old Computer Shopper magazines are interesting to people here because they're interested in computers and computer history, but they're not interesting to other people. But again, after you've looked through an old magazine full of these things, you'll tire of them. As for ads being more interesting than "old media", that depends on the media. If it's classic old movies like Hitchcock thrillers or whatever, then definitely not. Movies like that are interesting and entertaining to watch even today. No one in their right mind wants to watch 2 hours of nonstop TV ads from the 1950s, by comparison. Other stuff, it really depends on your interest, and how useful the information is to you now. Are you just satisfying curiosity about history? Or trying to solve some kind of problem that requires historical knowledge? Whatever you're researching is probably more interesting than the ads, though those might be interesting on their own too, to an extent.

eru 2y ago

I found those things quite fascinating, and if it's as small as a few hard-drives (and not something as big as eg a car), I would definitely keep it around.