←back to thread

128 points Brajeshwar | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.211s | source
Show context
smitelli ◴[] No.42479979[source]
> I got a picture of my great grandfather, thing took six hours to take your picture. [...] Every guy had one picture back then. And it's just him like, "[grimacing] I gotta get back, feed them hogs!" Now, in the future of course it'll be different. 50 years from now, people will be going like, "Hey! You wanna see a hundred thousand pictures of my great grandfather? I got 'em right here plus everything he did every day of his life." --Norm Macdonald[1]

There is certainly a quantity of stuff online that is absolutely worth saving, but there's a considerably larger proportion that's just redundant to the point of being unremarkable and pointless. The trick is filtering, which can be capital-H Hard. That's why some may want to err on the side of over-collecting to reduce the possibility of missing something that will actually be important someday.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sY6SjMITHrQ

replies(2): >>42480196 #>>42480588 #
1. diggan ◴[] No.42480588[source]
Yeah, this is a good point. Isn't it better we save too much, as tooling for filtering stuff out will always get better, rather than saving too little? The latter has no workaround (today at least).