Actually liked this writeup on “big” data - more insights than the somewhat stale (though mostly accurate) “your data isn’t big”-type article.

https://motherduck.com/blog/big-data-is-dead/

An alternate definition of Big Data is “when the cost of keeping data around is less than the cost of figuring out what to throw away.” I like this definition because it encapsulates why people end up with Big Data. It isn’t because they need it; they just haven’t bothered to delete it.

@alpha Less than a Terrabyte!

*goes to check photo storage*

Okay phew

I'm still a few years away from having Enterprise-level data in my own personal archives

@nat Though I assume one of your photos is probably the density of like, a year’s worth of data for 90% of the companies the article talks about!

@alpha Oh yeah. Photos are *huge.*

And, actually, kind of another instance of what he's talking about with like, raw data that's fresh-and-new versions old data that's archived and basically never gets referenced again. The RAW files I shoot are massive but once they're "developed" into JPEGs they're much smaller, because a big chunk of that filesize is just like, a million bad photographs you could make out of the original file.

@nat Huh, that’s a really interesting analogue!