Can I introduce you to the concept of "fire" :D

A single bitflip wiping your novel is incredibly unlikely, to the point of being almost impossible. Modern OSs and filesystems are fairly resilient, and the data is likely all still there.

Not really. Your examples work both ways to me. You can loose typewriter stuff as well, like say you spill something all over it. For film I have heard horror stories of it not recording or the film failed so same applies to that as well. If anything stuff like word files now default to save every 5 minutes and honestly if its that important it should be saved both local and some cloud location as well.

I think both sides have pros and cons just like everything and neither are any simpler, at least to me.

I get what you're saying except I am the opposite. I used to do everything analog, but carrying and reading books became too painful. The school or public library used to be my favorite place. I used to draw a lot in analog too, but that became too painful. Nowadays if I want to read, it has to be digital or it won't be comfortable and too painful. I like being able to resize text and easily search for things. I am also getting more into audiobooks or TTS. I hate when I am asked to write with a pencil and paper, my handwriting has become shit too.

Digital with proper backups will last longer than most non-archival analog media. But there's always weaknesses to every medium. Fire and flood will destroy analog media. Even just humidity, mold, sunlight, too cold, too hot, everyday conditions can damage analog media.

I felt like I agreed with the title, but the logic in the explanation doesn't hold up for me. I don't think analog or digital are more resistant to various things that may happen -- both are susceptible to their own things.

Where I do agree: I can hold a vinyl record in my hand, and it's MY copy. Mine has a scratch that makes that noise on track 2. The crackle is specific to mine. It is unique in a way that the Spotify equivalent isn't.

But put that record in the wrong spot, it'll warp. Everything dies, just in a different way.

PSA: I am not suggesting equivalence. I'll take analog all day long and it shocks me that people are willing to pay over and over again to access the same content with digital streaming. But yeah, can't get behind the logic in the post.

I mean there's 2 sides. Analog fails in more gradual forms. Digital obviously has the advantage of... replicating massively over large distances very quickly... IE your document could be backed up to a remote server as often as you save it. Versioning can exist so, you can have every change every update... differences between the file at 3:33 and 3:34 pm.

True on the gist that, a single corruption can't hit a whole typed document usually, IE your 20th keystroke on a typewriter can't randomly damage the first 19 characters.

I would say though digital excels in being able to be replicated, and versioned.

I love typewriters. When I write with them, I write differently than when I write with my computer. Just one example: if I write something i find shitty with my computer, I just delete it; if i do it with my typewriter, I have to physically strike the “bad” text. This has two consequences : I have to think more of what I'm writing, and if i finally change my mind the bad text is still there for me to work again or put somewhere else in my text. The “tangibleness” is important not only for conservation reasons.

But computers are better at sharing what in wrote, and polishing my texts. I like to scan and OCR-ize my pages and finishing the work on a computer. I don't oppose analog and digital, but i find it sad that most people chose one (the digital generally) and reject the other. It's like not using your left hand.

Fire can destroy paper, too much light can wreck undeveloped film, a magnet can “brick” tape. All media is ephemeral.

Digital just adds more layers of abstraction before it reaches you and your message goes out to wherever. And there's more signal stuff around it.

I can see my notepad. I can move it around, I could put paint on my fingers and touch it to draw something.

On a computer, I hit keys and they send a signal through the machine with a bunch of stuff going on before it appears on the screen. The computer might have some issues and then, even if I hit the keys nothing happens or something unexpected. And when I break the screen it's not on the screen anymore, but somehow still there and went god knows where on the way.

The notepad is a lot simpler.

Oh buddy, this is basically my worldview.

I have shelves of vhs tapes and dvds. Almost every common game console since 1975 and the games. 200 records, around 50 reel to reel tape, 250+ cds. I am all about real and authentic. Especially since today everything has been cheapened, strip mined, and sold for parts.

If its not physical, you dont own it (hard drives full of stuff counts too of course but its not quite the same).

Analog > digital in every capacity.

analogue*

Yes, analog is more tangible, if you define it in terms of user experience. For me personally, holding an actual paper book and smelling the paper is an entirely different experience than an ebook-reader (although I do love mine). The act of looking up a piece of music in your collection and playing the physical medium on a device feels more satisfying than simply looking up the digital stream.

However, 'tangible' is nice, but 'intangible' has its advantages too. I rip my CDs in order to be able to listen to them on my phone (and to have the music in my collection in case the CD breaks). Last time I bought a few CDs, I even got a download linnk for the digital files as well. Neat! Backups are way easier with digital, both on-site and off-site. Finally, the abundance of digital streams makes it easier for me to discover new artists. Digital media have their use cases too. :-)