RandomLensman

The taking care of the book for 70y does not involve recreating the book over and over again to keep it readable or keeping a reading machine in working condition (or be able to recreate it). It's an entirely different level of care.

If the medium isn't destroyed, it is directly readable if it's a book, but not necessarily so in digital because hardware and software is needed - just taking care of the original medium isn't enough in digital over centuries.

No immediate benefits but could be beneficial long-term (increased well-being but not the same as learning). Whether things in Czechia are comparable to that US situation I wouldn't know.

I would not call needing weeks or months not a problem (assuming you also get the potentially proprietary software to understand the data recovered). Also, early hard drives weigh 100s of kilograms, so just physically handling them is difficult.

Totally agree on accessing NVME example.

Not at all the same thing - what equipment do you need to read hieroglyphs on top of understanding the language (which goes for digital, too)? If you have the paper and understand the language, that's it. We already can see that accessing old digital data isn't necessarily easy if it wasn't always kept on/converted to current media and formats (will we keep that up for millenia)?

And both storage can be broken, needing reconstruction.

If I were to give you a 70y old book in English vs some 70y tape with data on - which one is easier to read?

Every constraint on the table. Tighten those enough and something interesting happens, you end up with only one possible solution.

Is there always a unique solution? If constraints A is tightened and then determines the outcome, could that not also happen with a tightened constraint B that determines a different outcome?

That is sufficient to make it real for most intents and purposes.

Yes, so quite limited in scope. We have no experience with storing and keeping accessible electronic records for hundreds of years, though, but we know already that accessing old storage media and formats isn't necessarily easy.

You need a machine (hardware and software) to read digital copies, not just the digital copies.

Seems to be rather sturdy in my experience. Would we even be able to read an electronic record after 100 or 200 years of storage? Old piece of paper is quite accessible.

So which one is the ground truth if there is a difference between them?

What's wrong with an old fashioned paper registry then?

Then fingerprints in passport and person shouldn't match, no?

Seems like Ireland only currently (looking at the Danish Minstry of Foreign Affairs on passports). And, yes, age threshold for kids.

Which EU passports don't (other than below some age, lack of fingers etc.)? For a while some older ones might not have, but not sure if the expiry would still be long enough?

Edit: seems like Ireland is the odd one out (Danemark could, but seems to fingerprint).

EU passports do.

Is there a high incidence of forgeries?

The fingerprints in the passport can't do that?

No more waiting in a long immigration queue?

If the US gets the data anyway, why the need for access?

I don't see how the UK could generally be self-sufficient in any large war.

If I were to give you ten atoms of Po210, could you tell me which one will be next to turn into Pb206. What's your algorithm to do that?

Atoms don't decay? Radioactive decay isn't a thing?

But at least we agree there is nothing we can predict.

Revealed preference isn't about no choice (or oddly forced), but rational choices and my point is that we don't know how much here is "no choice" vs "rational choice". It is not a revealed choice for most people not to have a super yacht - they just do not get to make that choice.

People with a lot of degress of freedom (wealth) seem to be doing ok with choosing actual physical relationships, marriages, etc. - why is that? (About 80+% of the richest 100 people are married, for example, and they tend to have quite a few children, too)?

I don't think there is that agreement that it is in total a net negative to society.

That said, with bans upcoming or in force in a lot places, what measures should we monitor to see improvements in wellbeing etc. (screen time isn't one there, I'd say)? What do we do if those do not go up noticably?

My point was that we cannot predict which atom decays next.

If you want to claim that we could predict which specific atom decays next, I'd really like to see a lot more explaintion and exposition as it would upend current understanding.

Not convinced that we are seeing revealed preferences or something else (being "priced out", for example).

Failure and uncertainty are part of life, so I have no issue with those.

What would be "genuine" about the physical relationship in a box? A sentient, conscious being with autonomy and agency would bring uncertainty etc. right back no?

I don't see how such robots would be sufficient there and recent trends might mean little over the next decades.

How much of any gains the machinr owners could keep isn't just up to them - I think they look more powerful than they are.

What is the thought experiment then to show other than a hypothetical piece of compute hardware? What's the experiment and its implication beyond the existence and its properties?

Is it possible to clone without destroying the original brain (and is a semiconductor the right substrate for it)? Thinking of the no cloning theorem here...