No device - console, phone, laptop, tablet, anything - should be sold with less than 128gb of storage. 64gb is not acceptable. It’s almost anti consumer, and it only exists so that companies can say “Prices start at…”
@Daojoan #degrowth dictates otherwise. We really need to start doing way less with even way more less.
My fave pet remark: we flew to the moon with less than 4K, and remember the root DNS servers of yore? Well, we’ve been doing way less with much more resource spillage. Let’s reverse that trend, and try to break out of this death spiral.
@dalias @Daojoan The solution for that is easy. Things need to #degrowth the shit out of themselves all the way.
Which means, we need to stop pixing every shit we take. And if we do, a crappy-rezzed still is all we need. And the crappyrez should further disincentivize us away from the currently fashionable ultratechnonarcissism (that’s killing us).
@dalias @Daojoan That’s why we need to fix the tech. And actually, limiting the maximum storage would be a GREAT way to put a limit to a lot of resource-wasteful practices.
People actually WOULD need to stop and think twice about using up resources if these resources would (to them) be as precious and scarce as they, well, actually really are (given that we have but one world to burn).
@dalias @Daojoan I think you’re missing the #degrowth point. You don't need to store all that stuff. And if you actually can’t, that limit is a bit clearer.
The bad thing here is that you actually *can* buy devices that keep up the pretence of infinite, boundless growth. Like I said: one world, and that’s it. We’ve already used it up. Now what? Use it up even more?
@js @Daojoan No amount of digital storage for personal use can "use up" the world. As the storage volume gets larger, the material mass and manufacturing cost (which reflects material and energy usage) tends down. This won't go on forever, but "people are storing too many pictures of their kids" or "oh noes people are storing offline backups of wikipedia" are NOT ACTUAL PROBLEMS THE WORLD FACES.
@dalias @Daojoan It’s not a “cost” thing. It’s an actual resource scarcity thing. Including, by the way, energy. Storage is rare earth metals, minerals, and energy.
You’re right, “this won’t go on forever”. It didn’t; we’re now burning up 1.7 of earth’s yearly resources every year. This year, Earth Overshoot Day? August, 1.
And no, it’s not just “storage”. It’s unbridled growth (the idea of—) anyywhere. And that’s why #degrowth is a necessity. Everywhere.
@js @Daojoan You really don't understand the stuff involved. Yes, replacing devices every year because you need bigger storage has resource costs. OTOH the marginal resource costs of a 512 GB SD card vs a 64 GB SD card are basicaly zilch. Storage size does not translate to resource consumption in any direct way.
@dalias @Daojoan I do object to that “all the data they want” as a given beyond discussion. Cuz limits. We really really need to scale down. And if a limit compels us towards the what and how of storage: good.
That 50mpx multiexposure stored as one 5GB stream? No. A flow that starts that way and then stores a single 200K png? Maybe ok.