3 ms·

Thanks for digging this up. Every "scientists create new storage medium" is always a disappointment when you get to see the write speeds. This seems decent? At

Thanks for digging this up. Every "scientists create new storage medium" is always a disappointment when you get to see the write speeds. This seems decent? At least in "raw" numbers there's nothing obviously making this useless. Let's hope they have a path to quick commercialisation and make it available. If there's any DC adoption will be the real test, I think.

stackghost 8mo ago
>This seems decent? Definitely. If it actually achieves those speeds it's perfectly reasonable for long-term/cold storage.
- Someone 8mo ago
  Depends somewhat on the read speed, too. Extreme example: if that is one bit per year, it doesn’t matter that you can write stuff on it.
  - dyauspitr 8mo ago
    I imagine if you can use lasers to etch at that speed, you can use them to read at similar speeds as well.
po1nt 8mo ago
First CDs would take hour and a half to write with a laser. Once engineers take over the tech, it will might get faster.
- wumms 8mo ago
  If they get the read speed up to a couple of GBit/s (~100x current max write speed), 4.8TB might be a good fit for 32k movies.
  - bdbdbdb 8mo ago
    Of course there are people out there watching 32k movies. Was 4k not enough? Am I the only one who's still content with 720p?
    - notyourwork 8mo ago
      The display has some bearing on this. Generally, 1080p is good enough but some cinematography benefits from better resolution and as a result, requires a better display.
thegrim33 8mo ago
Write speed is probably the least important metric for people that are considering something like this. After everything with storage and longevity is taken care of, improving write speeds is a nice to have, but not the important part.