3 ms·
This article is incredibly misleading. First of all there is an inconsistency. The headline says they stored 700 terrabytes (4.4 petabytes). It then later says
by wbizzle 14y ago
This article is incredibly misleading. First of all there is an inconsistency. The headline says they stored 700 terrabytes (4.4 petabytes). It then later says that they actually stored 700 kilobytes (Their book) and that they did made 70 billion copies (44 petabytes?). The main thing is that storing 700 kilobytes and then making 700 billion copies is considerably less useful than storing 70 billion terabytes outright. Aside from that though, this is awesome, and a huge step forward into promising and uncharted territory.
- gibybo 14y agoIt says they stored 44 petabytes total (70 billion * 700 kilobytes), and 700 terabytes in a single gram (which is 5.5 petabits, not 4.4 petabytes).
- skosuri 14y agoin the paper, we say 1.5mg per petabyte at large scales. we only encode 650kB or so. this seems a little sensationalistic. we are far away from being able to do 1 petabyte of arbitrary information.
- gibybo 14y agoWait, 1.5mg per petabyte at large scales? Wouldn't that mean a gram could hold (1000/1.5) 667 petabytes and presumably scalable to many grams (eventually)? I understand it's only 650kB right now, but the density is obviously still incredible.
- skosuri 14y agoyes. density is astounding. that's why it's in science i presume. mostly because people forget how dense dna information really is.