3 ms·

>you need a fucking farming manual on paper. With an adjustable hole punch, prong fasteners, (optionally) duct tape for the spine, and (optionally) sheet prote

>you need a fucking farming manual on paper. With an adjustable hole punch, prong fasteners, (optionally) duct tape for the spine, and (optionally) sheet protectors for the front and back covers, you can crank out a survival library of (open-source) books as fast as pages come out your Brother laser. I never bothered with fancy acid-free paper. Modern paper has good longevity, but to be safe I use non-recycled, non-whitened (91 brightness) paper. Guide with prong fasteners (I prefer white tape, full-size pages, double/triple`inside a sheet protector as covers): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVnpnHWcE04 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVnpnHWcE04 A different technique with brad fasteners: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vD3vWZ0I85g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vD3vWZ0I85g Lots of fancy book-binding tutorials out there, but I suspect most people don't realize how simple a paperback can actually be.

kylebenzle 2y ago
I'm still WAY better off with my solar panels and ALL the books on an external hard drive. I can't think of ANY situation where a print out of Wikipedia would be better than a digital version.
- schiffern 2y ago
  Wikipedia is an extreme example, since it's highly impractical to print the whole thing. OTOH printing your "Top 20" survival books is quick and affords a nice measure of system-level dissimilar redundancy (not to mention valuable barter goods :D).
- echoangle 2y ago
  > I can't think of ANY situation where a print out of Wikipedia would be better than a digital version. An EMP destroys your electronics and makes accessing the digital version impossible?
  - kylebenzle 2y ago
    In this scenario we have the print version AND the digital version. You could also say in the middle of a house file with the paper on fire the digital version would be better but it's pointless to invent around the assumptions.
    - echoangle 2y ago
      But the claim was that there is no scenario at all where print would be better than digital. > I'm still WAY better off with my solar panels and ALL the books on an external hard drive. I can't think of ANY situation where a print out of Wikipedia would be better than a digital version. I just gave a scenario where a print out of Wikipedia would be better than a digital version.
    - schiffern 2y ago
      > In this scenario we have the print version AND the digital version. Except this is the exact scenario I've been suggesting all along. If you want access to both versions, you still employ the same DIY bookbinding techniques. Nothing changes. Of the bookbinding tips I gave, "obliterate your digital copy" was (and I didn't think I had to explain this) not one of the suggested steps. ;-) Hence backup, not format shift.
- palmotea 2y ago
  > I'm still WAY better off with my solar panels and ALL the books on an external hard drive. No you're not. One component is your setup gets fried and you lose access to everything. Paper is its own reader device: it's far more resilient, because it has much few dependencies for use. Just think about digital archiving vs paper archiving for a bit, and it becomes clear. > I can't think of ANY situation where a print out of Wikipedia would be better than a digital version. Wikipedia would be of little practical value in a post collapse situation. And frankly, it's pretty terrible now for anything besides satisfying idle curiosity.
palmotea 2y ago
> With an adjustable hole punch, prong fasteners, (optionally) duct tape for the spine, and (optionally) sheet protectors for the front and back covers, you can crank out a survival library of (open-source) books as fast as pages come out your Brother laser. This is actually one of the few "post apocalyptic" computer ideas that actually makes some sense to me. Though it would probably still make more sense to pre-print that library than wait until conditions are difficult to do the printing. Unless your plan is assume availability of printer paper, you'd still need to store the same volume of blank paper as your library, and you'd be stuck trying to run a printer when things like electricity are much less available.
- schiffern 2y ago
  > it would probably still make more sense to pre-print that library than wait until conditions are difficult to do the printing. That's what I meant. Sorry I left it unclear. I should have explicitly called that out, thanks. Basically it's cliff-notes from my shot at an "MVP of home hardcopy backups." No surprise, these simpler techniques (often seen when corporations had internal printing for employee handbooks and such) are better suited to home processing with minimal equipment. All you need is a three-hole punch. It's not about achieving a "perfect" bookbinding (a real term), or for people who do bookbinding as a hobby. Instead it's a fast/easy/cheap technique for people who just want a hardcopy backup, without needing a special bookbinding vice in the house. Three ring binders were my obvious first choice, but they're surprisingly costly, somewhat awkward to use, prone to tearing pages, and usually take more space on the shelf. Hope that explains it better. Cheers

kylebenzle 2y ago

I'm still WAY better off with my solar panels and ALL the books on an external hard drive. I can't think of ANY situation where a print out of Wikipedia would be better than a digital version.

schiffern 2y ago
Wikipedia is an extreme example, since it's highly impractical to print the whole thing. OTOH printing your "Top 20" survival books is quick and affords a nice measure of system-level dissimilar redundancy (not to mention valuable barter goods :D).
echoangle 2y ago
> I can't think of ANY situation where a print out of Wikipedia would be better than a digital version. An EMP destroys your electronics and makes accessing the digital version impossible?
- kylebenzle 2y ago
  In this scenario we have the print version AND the digital version. You could also say in the middle of a house file with the paper on fire the digital version would be better but it's pointless to invent around the assumptions.
  - echoangle 2y ago
    But the claim was that there is no scenario at all where print would be better than digital. > I'm still WAY better off with my solar panels and ALL the books on an external hard drive. I can't think of ANY situation where a print out of Wikipedia would be better than a digital version. I just gave a scenario where a print out of Wikipedia would be better than a digital version.
  - schiffern 2y ago
    > In this scenario we have the print version AND the digital version. Except this is the exact scenario I've been suggesting all along. If you want access to both versions, you still employ the same DIY bookbinding techniques. Nothing changes. Of the bookbinding tips I gave, "obliterate your digital copy" was (and I didn't think I had to explain this) not one of the suggested steps. ;-) Hence backup, not format shift.
palmotea 2y ago
> I'm still WAY better off with my solar panels and ALL the books on an external hard drive. No you're not. One component is your setup gets fried and you lose access to everything. Paper is its own reader device: it's far more resilient, because it has much few dependencies for use. Just think about digital archiving vs paper archiving for a bit, and it becomes clear. > I can't think of ANY situation where a print out of Wikipedia would be better than a digital version. Wikipedia would be of little practical value in a post collapse situation. And frankly, it's pretty terrible now for anything besides satisfying idle curiosity.

palmotea 2y ago

> With an adjustable hole punch, prong fasteners, (optionally) duct tape for the spine, and (optionally) sheet protectors for the front and back covers, you can crank out a survival library of (open-source) books as fast as pages come out your Brother laser. This is actually one of the few "post apocalyptic" computer ideas that actually makes some sense to me. Though it would probably still make more sense to pre-print that library than wait until conditions are difficult to do the printing. Unless your plan is assume availability of printer paper, you'd still need to store the same volume of blank paper as your library, and you'd be stuck trying to run a printer when things like electricity are much less available.

schiffern 2y ago
> it would probably still make more sense to pre-print that library than wait until conditions are difficult to do the printing. That's what I meant. Sorry I left it unclear. I should have explicitly called that out, thanks. Basically it's cliff-notes from my shot at an "MVP of home hardcopy backups." No surprise, these simpler techniques (often seen when corporations had internal printing for employee handbooks and such) are better suited to home processing with minimal equipment. All you need is a three-hole punch. It's not about achieving a "perfect" bookbinding (a real term), or for people who do bookbinding as a hobby. Instead it's a fast/easy/cheap technique for people who just want a hardcopy backup, without needing a special bookbinding vice in the house. Three ring binders were my obvious first choice, but they're surprisingly costly, somewhat awkward to use, prone to tearing pages, and usually take more space on the shelf. Hope that explains it better. Cheers