>>12483415Given sufficient redundancy in copying & storage schemes, digital already could in principle have longevity comparable to that of short genetic sequences, that is for geological time scales, and good for as long as civilization is stable enough to sustain both industry and institutions of historic preservation--the main problem being that big data companies are not trustworthy custodians of cultural memory, any more than bad governments are. How fast an analogue copy degrades, or how long it takes for a particular single digital copy to "break" from more errors than its checksum scheme can reliably correct for, depends on other factors particular to the chemistry of their composition, the storage conditions suitable to each, minor differences of quality control in their manufacture that are often not apparent until decades later, and on how statistically robust the checksum scheme is in the case of a digital format.
>>12483446I began "data hoarding" as a kid in the early 70s, and almost all of my 1500 audio cassettes of even decent quality that weren't abused or ruined in the occasional mishap, even some that were played hundreds of times, play back the same as the day they were recorded. Likewise for the look of all of the several hundred VHS cassettes I made off cable between1989 and 2010 that weren't recorded in the SLP mode that is susceptible to tracking problems from slight stretching & distortion of the thin Mylar base they're made mostly of. Magnetic loss to tape is a negligible factor compared to the chance of janky machinery mangling it.
>>12483476If there's anything you have a unique copy of, it's not really archived unless it's back onto onto removable, most preferably M-disc bluray.
