Comment by jpc0

Comment by jpc0 11 days ago

31 replies

Define internet here.

Having recently had a week long internet outage I can say quite confidently, nothing really.

The things that caused me massive anxiety during that outage was things that are real time.

No communication, since all my communication is through VOIP services of some sort, even mobile calls might be down depending on how you define internet.

And no banking at all, my bank doesn't even have physical branches and most banks in my country have gone that way, even going to a physical branch for one of the larger incumbent banks they just put you on a call with their call center, they cannot help you locally. The tellers and just fancy ATMs and they charge you a premium to use them instead of the ATM outside. If you thing that wont be an issue, well the internet is down, that local branch is useless.

There's still many cash based business so that's less of an issue for me but we will definitely have pandemic level panic again. I mean during the pandemic people bought all the toilet paper here, not the food but the toilet paper...

Online media will be the least of your problems and large swaths of that information is available and backed up at libraries around the world. Likewise if only the network is down the servers still exist so the data didn't go away.

Also if Y2K taught us anything is that we will solve the problem relatively quickly and even if what we currently know as the internet fails a different form of the internet will be back up soon enough.

oceanplexian 10 days ago

It’s weird that we are in the minority (I guess I’m not shocked since this is HN). Very little on the Internet is useful for survival in an Internet down scenario. And if the Internet is gone, we must have far bigger problems. Libraries are going to be far more useful, and books don’t require electricity. I grew up in a place with lots of power outages and the main thing you are worried about is having hot water for a bath or a being able to cook a meal.

Tangential thought but we should probably work hard to preserve libraries in the future. Real ones, with books. They are really unmatched when it comes to longevity and safeguarding information in a way that computers cannot replicate.

  • jappgar 10 days ago

    I can't get behind these restricted whatif scenarios. If the internet were to disappear there would be ensuing outages of critical services and shortages of essential items very quickly. (In part because of the inevitable mass panic and hoarding).

    If I knew the internet was going out tomorrow I wouldn't spend any time on the internet at all. I would go the grocery store, gas station, friends houses and then get as far from major cities as I could.

    • zamadatix 9 days ago

      Thought experiments are a springboard for an area of thought, not necessarily a literal question to be answered. When someone asks you "what would you do with a billion dollars" responses like "but I don't have a billion dollars" or "nothing, I'd be investigating how I got it" completely miss the point. It's not about whether the scenario would realistically play out it's about setting the stage for certain types of thoughts without prescribing an exact question on everyone. Maybe you'll never realistically be at a train track with a fork in a road, 1 in the alternate path and 5 in the active path, with nothing more than the option to flick the switch and no other consideration to make... but it sets the stage for interesting thoughts to consider and talk about.

      It can lead to much more varied and interesting discussion that direct questions, if you're willing to get over the non-literalness.

      • jappgar 5 days ago

        Yes I know what a hypothetical question is... this question presumes that downloading content is something I would do in this scenario.

        Like asking: "If you could meet one celebrity in person which Kardashian would it be?"

  • Asraelite 10 days ago

    > They are really unmatched when it comes to longevity and safeguarding information in a way that computers cannot replicate.

    How so? There are long-term digital storage technologies that would long outlast any book and are many orders of magnitude denser.

    • qskousen 10 days ago

      The only requirements for reading a physical book is that you know how to read and can turn pages.

      If it's digital storage, you have to have electricity, a compatible device, an understanding of the storage, and software that can read it.

      • freedomben 10 days ago

        > If it's digital storage, you have to have electricity, a compatible device, an understanding of the storage, and software that can read it.

        And, increasingly, DRM servers that will allow you to read it.

    • nonameiguess 9 days ago

      Information has outlived entire civilizations because of books. The key is the technology needed to decode and read it, which is just humans themselves. Either people still exist who can read and speak the language or closely related languages, and if not, we can hope to find something like a Rosetta stone or use statistical analysis that relies up on the commonality of all human languages.

      Any digital storage device is simply giving you a bit stream. Being able to read the bits at all might rely upon technology that no longer exists. You need to know the layout of the medium, where to start reading, how to perform any built-in error correcting, what constitutes data versus metadata. Once you read the bits, you still need to do all of that again, but this time at the level of the filesystem. Then you need to do it a third time at the level of the file format. Then you get, at best, something like a consecutive sequence of unicode code points. Now you still need to know unicode.

      We have no idea if these sorts of technologies will be remembered in 3,000 years, but given the history, there's a very good chance people will still be able to read Sanskrit and Latin, and the way the human eyeball accepts and decodes light waves will not change.

      • Asraelite 9 days ago

        I think looking at history is a terrible way to make predictions about the future. The world will never again be anything close to what it was in the past.

        • shiroiushi 9 days ago

          You think assuming humans in the future won't have eyeballs capable of viewing visible light is a bad assumption?

          If the humans of the future are all blind, I think we can forget about worrying about preserving civilization.

    • bbarnett 10 days ago

      No there is not. What do you mean!

      Nothing has been verified to work beyond 50 years, and those with data errors and failure rates.

      There are those CDs made out of rock, but they have never veen proven to pass the test of time.

      • Springtime 10 days ago

        While I think common digital media outlasting analog forms in terms of integrity over long periods of time is unrealistic I do have 40 year old CDs from 1984 that are still bit perfect as of just a couple years ago (verified against online checksum databases for the same releases), so it'll be interesting seeing how long they last.

      • Asraelite 10 days ago

        > There are those CDs made out of rock, but they have never veen proven to pass the test of time.

        You're saying that something that has existed for less than 50 years doesn't count because we haven't been able to actually test it for more than 50 years, even though we understand the physics behind it and can theoretically predict how long it will last...

        • michaelt 10 days ago

          M-disc? I'd struggle to get hold of a blu-ray disk player to read one today let alone in 50 years time.

          And a quick google reveals a lot of people are very worried about counterfeit disks too.

    • lxgr 10 days ago

      What technologies are you thinking of?

      Ubiquitous access to reader devices is also a factor, and I can’t actually think of anything that fits that bill.

      • Asraelite 10 days ago

        The best one seems to be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5D_optical_data_storage but there's also M-DISC and DNA storage. Microfilm also lasts about 500 years.

        As for ubiquitous access, store a reading device or instructions on how to build one along with the data. If you're unable to do that, then I doubt you would be able to keep a massive library of books around for very long either.

        There's also no financial incentive to build technologies like this. If the world actually got together and tried to build long-term digital storage then I'm sure we could come up with something even better.

  • fullstackchris 10 days ago

    There are many, many libraries that have sections that have an almost military-level protection (protected atmosphere, security, and so on) I think humanity has done a good job in general on this front

    • shiroiushi 9 days ago

      Yeah, and where exactly are those libraries? Are they in safe places that won't be obliterated if a war breaks out? I don't think so; they're mostly in the most likely to be targeted locations.

      If humans were serious about protecting knowledge, they'd put these libraries on Svalbard or in Antarctica, or better yet in a lava tube on the Moon.

SoftTalker 11 days ago

Agree. If we could time-travel back to 1985 then fine, I would miss very little about the modern internet.

If the internet were to just suddenly "go down" globally it would of course be a disaster and result in much unrest, panic, supply chain breakdowns, and general collapse of society. It it so interwoven into everything we depend on.

  • toofy 10 days ago

    the real horror would be if it were to happen in 20 years or so, if it were to happen in the near future we still have people around who remember how things were done before computers.

    society would end. some bumpy roads, sure, but we did very well before the internet and we’d do fine without it. we would just rebuild.

    it’s just not as instrumental as some people make it out to be. nice? absofuckinlutely. necessary? nopes.