Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

447 TB/cm² at zero retention energy – atomic-scale memory on fluorographane

zenodo.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 169 posts

Re: 447 TB/cm² at zero retention energy – atomic-scale memory on fluorographane

#141

Post by [deleted] »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #140
rowanG077 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think there are public numbers. No doubt IBM knows. I do expect that trend to reverse this year if true.

https://www.lto.org/2025/07/lto-tape-technology-shipments-sc... https://www.theregister.com/2025/07/23/lto_2024_tape_shipmen... Unless something is wrong with these numbers, it's simple enough to do rough math to get tape count and compare with historical numbers. Claims of 5.7 or 5.8 million drives over the lifetime of the format can also be compared to older data to see a slowdown.

[deleted]

Re: 447 TB/cm² at zero retention energy – atomic-scale memory on fluorographane

#142

Post by tngranados »

bastawhiz wrote: post #60

Every year or so there's a new article about some new spectacular storage medium. Crystals, graphene, lasers, quartz, holograms, whatever. It never materializes. Demonstrating this stuff is possible isn't the hard part, it seems. Productionizing it is. You have to have exceedingly fast read and write speeds: who cares if it can store an exabyte if it takes all month to read it, or if you produce data faster than you…

I remember my father showing me one of those articles when I was a kid about a postal stamp size, thin and lightweight new memory system. I remember we were as doubtful then as you are now. A few years later I remember that moment while switching the micro SD card of a camera… Sometimes this breakthroughs turns out to be exactly as they are told

Re: 447 TB/cm² at zero retention energy – atomic-scale memory on fluorographane

#143

Post by [deleted] »

atoav wrote: post #123
mastermage wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No Street Infrastructure needeed to drive anywhere (kinda).

Ok, and where does the energy to consistently keep a weight in the air come from and is it really worth spending? I know flying cars are some sort of futuristic trope, yet I cringe at it every time I see it. They always assume magical infinite power. In the real the reason we do not have flying cars is the same why you don't use a drone as a coat hanger at home: It is just more practical to use a mechanical solution…

[deleted]

Re: 447 TB/cm² at zero retention energy – atomic-scale memory on fluorographane

#146

Post by rossjudson »

antonvs wrote: post #120
TOMDM wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Waymo has cars that drive themselves and are dramatically safer than people in most conditions and yet they're only in select cities. Do you just think Google hates money, or does this only work for hover cars

> Waymo has cars that drive themselves With the help of “remote assistance”, that is. Which is probably one of the reasons for the limited rollout.

Perhaps you could clarify your definition of "remote assistance", or describe scenarios.

Re: 447 TB/cm² at zero retention energy – atomic-scale memory on fluorographane

#147

Post by ijustlovemath »

bastawhiz wrote: post #60

Every year or so there's a new article about some new spectacular storage medium. Crystals, graphene, lasers, quartz, holograms, whatever. It never materializes. Demonstrating this stuff is possible isn't the hard part, it seems. Productionizing it is. You have to have exceedingly fast read and write speeds: who cares if it can store an exabyte if it takes all month to read it, or if you produce data faster than you…

1 exabyte/month is 380GB/s, which would be pretty epic in my opinion!

Re: 447 TB/cm² at zero retention energy – atomic-scale memory on fluorographane

#148

Post by antonvs »

rossjudson wrote: post #146
antonvs wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Waymo has cars that drive themselves With the help of “remote assistance”, that is. Which is probably one of the reasons for the limited rollout.

Perhaps you could clarify your definition of "remote assistance", or describe scenarios.

It’s been widely reported, and there were US Senate hearings about it. See e.g.: https://philkoopman.substack.com/p/waymo-tap-dances-about-re...

Re: 447 TB/cm² at zero retention energy – atomic-scale memory on fluorographane

#149

Post by atoav »

volemo wrote: post #138
atoav wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, and where does the energy to consistently keep a weight in the air come from and is it really worth spending? I know flying cars are some sort of futuristic trope, yet I cringe at it every time I see it. They always assume magical infinite power. In the real the reason we do not have flying cars is the same why you don't use a drone as a coat hanger at home: It is just more practical to use a mechanical solution…

What do you mean “we don’t have flying cars”? What are helicopters then?

Deathmachines that in their mechanical hubris angered the gods?

Re: 447 TB/cm² at zero retention energy – atomic-scale memory on fluorographane

#150

Post by atoav »

Keyframe wrote: post #119
atoav wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What advantage would hovering have?

smoother ride, no need for wheels so no road friction and fewer parts that wear, no need for shock absorbers as well, no need for roads clean of snow and ice which would make them both more practical and safer.. if we're talking star trek hovering, not rotor blade / hovercraft noisy shit with rotating parts that waste a ton of energy.

Aha, and which of the fundamental forces in our universe would it work with?
Post reply on HN