Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Romantic, but doomed to fail.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.




Or 1TBism, or even 5TBism, but let's stick to one of them or the point is lost.
  [vote for,

Not like the various forms of minimalism lifestyles, but it is a lifestyle, and it does involve minimising something, so yes, not like it at all.

3TBism would be the plan one tries to follow for the useful part of a lifetime, whereby you try and keep the amount of data you have, or require access to, to under 3TB. I mean total data - if it isn't in that 3TB, it is lost, doesn't exist, is nowhere accessible or recoverable. Gone. Didn't even be there in the first place.

How much data do you have? It's relatively easy to go out and buy another 2TB, 3TB, 5TB, 8TB drive these days, only that they cost money is the hindrance, not lack of availability or complication of use. If one is not careful, one ends up with another then another then another.

3TBism would be a conscious effort to keep some data and lose others, to not expand beyond 3TB. For some of us, that's difficult, for some, no problem whatsoever. For some, within 100MB would be all they consume, but for a typical person these days, there's photos being shot (at too high a resolution), music and video downloads, storage of all sorts of things, etc.

Arguably, streaming of media is one way to achieve this - never own anything, only stream it. However, if you actually make your own music or recordings, make your own video, or perhaps just shoot vast amount of photos, then it can be quite easy to exceed 3TB and go beyond.

The point of this is to recognise a boundary (rather than imagine you can keep buying drives) and evaluate some of the data as to whether it is paying the rent or not, and curate (a bit) what you've got. 3TBism is allowed to have more than one 3TB drive, obviously as mirror copies. Including cloud storage, your total data remit in your life will always be within 3TB one way or another.

(Am I being too generous with 3TB? I pick it as someone who does a fair amount of video shooting and editing, and if I only had 3TB to play with, I'd seriously have to start thinking seriously).

Ian Tindale, Feb 17 2017


       I think limiting one's data to 3TB is good advice. And, as Nöel Coward pointed out, the thing to do with good advice is to pass it on - it's never any use to oneself.
MaxwellBuchanan, Feb 17 2017

       No no no. Pointless, arbitrary, backwards-looking, small-minded, and many other things. Self imposed limits for limits sake is nonsense, stop that.
tatterdemalion, Feb 17 2017

       Wouldn't this fall under " let's all " ? (subtly nodding over towards the help file ... )
normzone, Feb 17 2017

       Having reflected on this, my opinions are now left/right reversed. Basically, I like the idea of having a jolly good organize - whether it be of socks, data, or cars. And, aside from the pleasure of order itself, such organizing is an opportunity to rediscover forgotten and under-used socks (or data, or cars).   

       But I am not, in general, in favour of simply deleting or erasing non-essential data. Every time I've got a new laptop, I have simply copied everything from my old laptop, dumped it in a folder and put that folder on my new laptop. My ever-larger hard drive is thus a sort of nested archive of all the laptops I've ever owned.   

       So, we need a way to encourage organization and re-examination of old files, but without the throwing-away business. Maybe there should be a National Tidy Your Files day.
MaxwellBuchanan, Feb 17 2017

       Have you ever had a situation where all the data you have doesn't fit onto one drive - particularly the internal drive of a computer (and worse, a laptop)?
Ian Tindale, Feb 17 2017

       Yes, twice.   

       Once was when I was (and indeed still am) working on a genome project which involved me having multiple files, each several tens of GB.   

       Twice was when I decided to ditch my DVD collection and burn them all to a hard drive. In each case, I just used an external drive; in each case, it was dirt cheap and had at least twice the capacity of my laptop's internal drive.   

       I also use external drives for backup, of course.
MaxwellBuchanan, Feb 17 2017

       I was wondering if I should count 'work' in this. I suspect not. I don't think it can be regarded as personal data to cap at 3TB if for example, one were an actual paid video editor or news gatherer, in which case, the data isn't entirely theirs, but mainly that it'd use up the 3TB in no time. So, no, let's not count work data, as in many cases, it outweighs personal data. 3TBism is a very long term view. Can you live an entire lifetime within 3TB?
Ian Tindale, Feb 17 2017

       This idea, in my opinion, is original enough to avoid the charge of "let's all". It's a new kind of social movement based on a new era of technology. If there were already a dozen like it out there I would agree.
Voice, Feb 17 2017

       Yes, Lets all have a nice 3TBism of life that government and commercial agencies can quickly precis rather than data spread out over multiple machines, drives and media in an obscure and personal way.
wjt, Feb 17 2017

       //government and commercial agencies can quickly precis//   

       I think that is a bit of a blue tuna. After all, the more data you have, the easier it is for people to acquire some of it.   

       But I just don't see the value in limiting your data to 3TB, except insofarasmuch as it makes you consider, examine and appreciate your data. I would probably appreciate my right hand more if I lost my left, but two hands is still manageable.   

       And what if I enjoy some sort of digital art? Perhaps a fully 3-D high-res digital sculpture, a couple of million pixels on a side? Or perhaps I collect lightfield images. Or perhaps I have a goal to collect the genome sequences of all known species? Or maybe I just love 1's and 0's? Or maybe I want to be able to store all of my friends and relations at sufficiently high (atomic) resolution to be able to emulate them perfectly?
MaxwellBuchanan, Feb 18 2017

       wjt, - why did you say "rather than"? That is incorrect to say.
Ian Tindale, Feb 18 2017

       MaxwellBuchanan, - The beneficial cognitive load of a maintained data footprint maybe outweighs the value within the content. After all, it's not the quality of life that counts, it's the quantities.
Ian Tindale, Feb 18 2017

       I can see this taking off like the tiny house trend with ths same minimalist crowd once we hit virtual reality as our default setting. And by tiny, I mean anything under 240 square meters...
RayfordSteele, Feb 18 2017

       [Ian] 'tightly packed' rather than 'spread out' although, using humans and bell shaped curves, some blur will occur. It's natural. Nature instilled us to be messy to help with 'it's' system.   

       [Max] Security won't be dependant on size. But finding useful stuff does. Spread out makes finding useful stuff harder.
wjt, Feb 18 2017

       The other thing about this is that the 3TB will, itself, have to grow.   

       If you'd asked me 10 years ago if I could keep all my stuff in 3GB, I'd have said yes. I wouldn't even have had to cull that much, if anything. Now here we are in 2017, and I couldn't keep even my essential stuff in 3GB, but I could do it in 3TB.   

       So, in another 10 years, it's likely that all my essential stuff will fit in 3PB, but 3TB would be out of the question.   

       So, realistically, you are just going to trailing a few years behind some sort of Moore's Law curve, rather than riding it - and where's the advantage in that?
MaxwellBuchanan, Feb 19 2017


back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle