Share this on Facebook
download .zip with all pictures
In light of the downvotes…
> I’d be curious about a comparison of ecological footprints in terms of what is required to produce and read the books as compared to what’s required to produced and read the files on that chip.
Am I not curious about a comparison of ecological footprints? I think I am. I’ve stated as much. I believe this to be true.
> The factory, and mining, and electricity generation required to read what is on that chip may be more impactful and take up more space than what would be required to produce and read those books.
This is just a bit of speculation in regard to what is actually required to establish a system which both initially creates and then produces the equipment required to store and read the data. I may or may not be wrong in my suggestion, but no information disproving has been presented with the downvotes and there is more to the process than simply having the data on a chip and pretending that it begins and ends there with nothing more to it.
> The real space required to store those books on the chip/disk is possibly just hidden better.
This is almost certainly true for reasons that I’ve just explained.
So… why the -3 score? Where have I lied or been mistaken or not contributed to the discussion? Was I wrong to reply in any way other than complete unquestioning agreement?