Kiss your storage woes behind thanks to a new technique that houses data in 3D.

Note: Unfortunately the research paper linked in the article is a dead/broken/wrong link. Perhaps the author will update it later.

From the limited coverage, it doesn’t sound like there’s an actual optical drive that utilizes this yet and that it’s just theoretical based on the properties of the material the researchers developed.

I’m not holding my breath, but I would absolutely love to be able to back up my storage system to a single optical disc (even if tens of TBs go unused).

If they could make a R/W version of that, holy crap.

  • odelik@lemmy.todayEnglish
    0·
    10 months ago

    Petabit/byte is not a buzz word.

    We use bits, megabits, terabits, and petabits fairly standardly in tech.

    That’s not to be confused with bytes, megabytes, terabytes, and petabytes. Server farms will contain Petabytes (PB) of data.

    Technically there’s also exabit/byte, zettabit/byte, and yottabit/byte as we continue to climb the chain of technical capabilities. It’s estimated that the internet overall has nearly 200 Zettabytes(ZB) of information in 2024.

    • hperrin@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      10 months ago

      I don’t think there are any storage media that advertise their capacity in *bits though.

    • Yawweee877h444@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      10 months ago

      I will refrain from using the word “standard”, but when it comes to data storage the most common terminology is in bytes, as I said TB(terabytes), GB, etc. Saying Pb(petabits) isn’t as common and gimmicky imo when referring to a new disk storage technology. 125 TB is impressive enough without having to throw the Peta in there.

      • odelik@lemmy.todayEnglish
        0·
        10 months ago

        Researchers and low level technology engineers tend to work in bits. I don’t have access to the full journal publication to verify, but it’s likely that the journal publication used that number and that the Gizmodo author/editor that choose the title just didn’t bother converting it to more “consumer friendly” terms.

        However, the author did boast that it would be “125,000,000 GB!”. So I’m gonna go with that this was an AI written article and doesn’t really know what a technology reader would actually prefer to see.

        • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
          0·
          10 months ago

          An LLM would absolutely know what the average reader would prefer to see, that’s kinda their whole schtick.

          • otp@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            0·
            10 months ago

            The average (non-technical) reader would prefer to see click on the bigger number