A lot of old stuff has no value to anyone. That can be hard to accept, but it's true. Even old wood furniture -- no one wants it. Old PC or Byte Magazines? Forget it; they're all over.
I think the former is pretty true, but old PC magazines are still important to keep around.
For one, they can be digitized to take up virtually no physical space (unlike furniture). Secondly, once digitized and OCR'd to make searchable, they're a valuable resource for finding out when certain products or technologies became available, for what cost, and sometimes include contemporary reviews.
In the more distant future I think there will be some value placed on historical tech in much the same way people still spend time researching medieval times and earlier. Having access to these documents will be important for future researchers and whatever their goals may be at that time. Furniture - less so. :)
And they had columnists and journalists and everything. Heady time.
Probably I could find a lot of stuff if I went to enough libraries but it certainly isn't all available and nicely indexed on the open web.
If you have something obscure, there's a good chance it hasn't.
I have friends who are Serbian living elsewhere and are about to start a family
They have no Serbian children’s media afaik (and it’s not exactly easy to find)
I found ~200GB of Serbian dubbed children’s media someone painstakingly digitised on /t/
I’m keeping it for when they eventually have those kids
Unless shown otherwise, assume nothing is archived correctly, completely or at all
Try reading some, try actually using any of the schematics and other technucal drawings, a lot looks ok at a glance, then turns out to be merely better tgan nothing when you actually try to use it the same way you would have used the original.
Every few years the definition of practical scanner quality and file size increases by 2x or more. A fax quality scan is infinitely better than nothing, so it's great that such scans were made as soon as that became possible, but a few years later scanners became 10x better and it became practical to work with 10x larger file sizes. So all of those documents really need to be scanned again. And the same process needs to hapoen yey again at least one more time. Even very good scans from only a few years ago are still only good compared to old scans. They are still practically garbage compared to the original print.
And much of what is currently digitized is precarious, one lawsuit or lapse in funding or ceo decision away from the service being shut down.
I've already lost tons of stuff I actually paid for to services that no longer exist, let alone free services.
Right now a lot of eggs are in archive.org and they are a charity that paints a huge "kill me" target on their own back every day. It makes no sense to operate on the assumption they will never become the library of alexandria.
Digitizing existing printed material is not remotely a done job. Not even barely scratched the surface if you step back and look at how we are still in the first few seconds of eternity.
Eventually, I swear!
When searching for a bed to buy (as I wanted solid wood), I even found many stores specializing in solid wood furniture.
I'm actually in the middle of getting a custom computer/music desk shipped cross country right now. Not solid wood either, and the thing still cost almost $2k with shipping.
[0]: https://www.otto.de/p/gozos-esstisch-scots-pine-series-essti...
(You did make your point though. I just really vehemently dislike pine as a building material for furniture)
No, it’s just become very expensive.
The difference is that today people don't think their grandkids will want to take decades old furniture in old style. They will probably live very far anyway and things change fast. Expectations and lifestyles are just different now.
I don’t know for other countries though.
But someone has to do it if it hasn't already been done. And that costs money/time.
But there's lots of ways that information may not filter to the big pile of old magazines disintegrating in the salt air.
It's what any minimally civilized adult does in any context, to respect someone else's efforts or valuables regardless if a thing is valuable to yourself. At least enough to try to give it back. At least enough to warn "hey, I'm just going throw this away".
It sounds like what happened here is individual turnover, where the entity that accepted the material is not the same entity that discarded the material.
It's still a vcf failure though, not a blameless accident.
As an organization they accepted a task and then did not do it. An individual leaving should not cause that. We invented writing and institutional knowledge thousands of years ago. And the organization certainly retains the benefits of the ongoing organizational continuity.
If anyone would say that turnover excuses anything, then I say that can only be valid if the organizations name and other assets also all evaporate at the same time as their obligations and agreements evaporate. You don't get to shed one and keep the other!
So it's fair to just judge the organization for committing this act the same as you would a person. Never trust them again with anything you care about. And as in Jason's case where he particularly cares about specifically preserving documents, and so is particularly burned by someone dropping that specific ball they agreed to take from him specifically, in his case it's totally fair for him to not want to even associate at all with them ever again, even if we all don't have to go that far.
They burned him especially badly, retroactively made him fail at a job he has set himself, by giving him a thumbs up we got this but then pissing on the work.
That makes Jason into a bad steward since he trusted them. He's not really a bad steward of course but it doesn't change the fact that what he set out to accomplish, and a responsibility he himself accepted from yet others before him, has failed. Not everyone has to care so much about some old magazines, but he does, and VCF knew he does, and we all benefit from the fact that there are people like him out there. So I say it's totally reasonable that he writes them off as dead to him. That is a correct and rational and even constructive reaction for him.
As he says in the article, he now has much more robust conversations on this. That's constructive.
I think it is constructive to tell everyone too.
Nothing wrong with VCF having to work hard and earn back a good name. And nothing wrong with everyone watching and being aware if they fail to.
However, as someone involved in an archiving project with a volunteer organization which changes people around a lot, I understand all too well that dealing with boxes of magazines like this is tough. If they're already scanned, great; the paper itself has very little value especially if you're not a library of some sort. If they're not, you're probably asking an organizations to spends multiple $10Ks to scan.
My mom couldn't care less about computers and she called me to ask if I wanted to keep some floppy disks before she threw them out.
And I've thrown out a ton of floppies and old games. You can't save everything just because it had some meaning to you once.
Enthusiastic or not, dealing with boxes and boxes of old magazines means spending lots of money and/or lots of time which is a high bar. (Though, as I wrote, they should have either just said no or returned it.)
I have addressed the excuse of turnover already. It isn't one.
But even if it were an excuse, that still goes poof when the organization discovers that they dropped a ball that someone else trusted them with and handled something so poorly, and tries to deny any cuplability and even tries to bash Jason back, instead of saying "Shit, we didn't know because we're all new here since then. We feel terrible that this happened!"
That would cost zero cents to have done, but it was still too much.
It really opened my eyes to the fact that most of what you value or hold dear will have no value to others, especially if it can't be resold. As a practical minimalist (rather than a strict one) it's informed my personal practices a fair bit.
But mostly, it's just piles of, frankly, crap. And in a weird way, it's sort of helping me deal with some of my tendencies to collect crap. Once I'm dead, 75% of it will be thrown away by someone hired to deal with the estate, maybe 50% of the rest will be sold, and the rest will once again go in the garbage. That screwdriver I'm keeping even though it doesn't work well? It's going in the landfill anyway. Might as well go tomorrow, as in 50 years.
Also if you know people starting out suggest that they visit an estate sale or two for dishes, pans, silverware, etc.
And anyone who wants fine china should just go buy people's complete sets on the last day for $15 or less.
I've gotten rid of almost everything I own twice by moving 7000 miles twice. I regret it.
Books, toys, trinkets, etc. I saw these, thought "I haven't opened these or touched them since I bought them". Turns out, there were memories associated with each one. Just seeing them would remind me of a time and a place. What I was doing, who my friends were, where I was, then I bought that thing. They all sat on bookshelves and I threw them away. I suppose I can go look at a picture of the shelves but it's not the same as glancing at them and having them trigger memories.
Tools, and supplies. I recently moved to a smaller apartment. I had a few boxes of things like left over parts from assembling furniture from 2 apartments previous. The day after I threw them out I needed them. All this stuff I have, 3 kinds of hole punchers, 4 kinds of tape (electrical, duct, masking, cellophane), a rarely need any of them except for maybe the cellophane. If I went by when "have I used it in the last 3 years I'd have thrown the first 3 away. But, that one day when I need it I'll be glad to have it. Same goes for various kinds of bandages, cooking utensils, boardgames, stationary supplies, gift wrapping supplies, ....
Another good example might be clothing. Yes, I do throw things away. But, there are various items I haven't used in years, long jeans for snow, high top hiking boots, thick socks, rash guards, etc.. that if I go by "have I used it recently" then I'd throw them out.
I'm not saying keep everything and no, no one will want this stuff. But, seeing both grandfathers basically have a maker-space full of stuff, and use it, makes me jealous that I didn't stick in one place and slowly build up my dragon horde of stuff too :P
Hold your horses. You need that one for abusive usecases. My favourite flathead is both bent and chipped.
I finally got fed up and replaced them and threw them away after I grabbed two in a row that didn't actually get the job done.
I got like 12 old worn out tshirts I save since I want to use them for painting. But I never actually use them when I paint ...
This is what terrifies me about getting a brain operation. To me, my brain is my universe ... but while I am drugged out and wide open on a table, my brain is just 8 pounds of fruit punch they are debating whether has spoiled. Who would champion its value without my own presence?
I live in the middle of nowhere New Hampshire. I have to drive a 2 hour round trip to get a specific brass screw, if I can't find one in my pile of crap in the woodshop's cabinets of drawers of boxes of envelopes. If I died, someone would toss all of it into a metal recycling scrap bin for 8 cents per pound. But to me it's worth 8 dollars per ounce, because of the information I have stored in it that no one else can access.
It's the same general reason why my work desk is a mess to everyone but me; but I can earn a livelihood out of the state of my desk, my files, my folders.
I think I wrote this reply for only myself but I sure got a boost out of it.
If you offer it for free, someone will take it. But asking ANY money is agreeing to wait a long, long time.
Ask at least a token amount and you will get someone who seriously wants it.
Relisted it for $20 and the next week it went painlessly.
If it's free, people assume it's not worth much (perhaps defective, etc).
If you ask a token amount, more people respond.
In a marketplace we might say that something has the value someone else is will pay for it. In case of donations like these it's somewhat tricky, it has the value someone is willing to take good care of it and preserve it. That's why it hurts in a way, they threw it away so it signals: that it had no value that's not even worth calling the person to pick it back up.
I've seen this happen with my own family. Some older family member thinks their collectables they have been saving are super valuable, only to find out that nobody in the family wants them. That's painful for them to accept that, understandably, so it has to be handled with care.
Another thing to think about is if it matters if it's Jason Scott. Should they have marked the boxes specially and treated the contents with a lot more care just because of who he is? That would have probably been smart from a PR standpoint. Maybe there is a chance some volunteer didn't know who Jason Scott is? But it would seem equally silly to now come out and say, sorry we didn't know it was you, Jason, we would have called back or kept them otherwise.
I've said this before, but it bears repeating.
The joy of collections comes in the collecting, not the final collection. Nobody wants to inherit "someone else's collection" - they want to collect themselves.
Secondly, 95% of your collection has little to zero value. 4% has some value. Perhaps 1% has significant value. There's a power law in play here. I -urge- you to turn the valuable parts into cash yourself before you pass. The coat of -identifying- the valuable parts dwarfs their value.
Therefore when you pass, your survivors will either give it away for nothing, or sell to a dealer for the price of transport. More likely it'll go to the dump. If this pains you then -dispose it yourself-.
If you have prized parts, those 5 items in a sea of thousands, make sure they are stored separately, clearly labeled and done one knows about them. They will then at least get donated. If you think they have value that can be realised -then you must dispose it yourself-.
A well known collector finally parting with their prize pieces everyone has been drooling over for 40 years is going to yield a greater return than a stranger walking in with the same items looking for quick cash.
Old furniture used to be handed down and treasured for generations. Suddenly, not anymore.
That said, where to put it (or more accurately, what it will replace) was very much part of the buying decision. (Fortunately it comes apart, so can fit in the car. )
But the author is right. Old furniture in homes is rare. Partly because there are a LOT more homes now (so less old furniture to go round) and partly because it takes time, and money, to furnish in a consistent "old furniture style".
It can also be -really- expensive. So becomes something of a "later in life" activity when funds allow.
Typically a bunch arrives on the market at once, so typically it goes to a dealer, and between transport, storage, sales etc, the estate won't get much.
I hope my parents don’t burden us with a storage unit full of junk. Just because they treasure it doesn’t mean we can or even want to become the next stewards of it. It’s all going to the landfill.
We realized the best solution was just to express thanks and gratefulness to them and then just give/sell to a junk disposal/reseller guy after they passed.
And sometimes you are among the ones to whom it will have value, but realize that only too late. Before my first relocation in the late 90s to a much smaller house, I tossed a huge load of old electronics magazines dating from the 70s on, and deeply regretted that years later. As partial consolation, I later discovered most of those issues have been already scanned and sent for preservation to a local repository (0) of vintage technical magazines.
(0) http://www.introni.it/riviste.html Mostly in Italian, a few in English, French and Spanish language.
Sure, but this is some kind of "vintage computer fest", who are supposed to understand that old stuff has value, and who are entrusted with it, and not just given it to dispose of. The very word "vintage" in their name should mean something.
If you can't find it a home, as the donor intended, call that person to take it back.
If that person just wanted the stuff gone, they would not have organized it into bins, and would have driven to their closest paper recycling place.
These VCF people look like total dickheads here, any way you look at it.
Any of those documents of 'old stuff' been used for observations to patent offices, or as citations in court - ie did it pay off?
I worked at UK Patent Office 20 odd years ago they had many small troves of journals, books, clippings that individual examiners had collected and classified (UKC, and ECLA). All gone I expect, replaced for patent search by 100s of millions more patent documents, journal articles, and everything on the web.
But all these things are precious historical documents of the development of technology and of course ourselves. They are vitally important to keep.
Of course they aren't "useful" in the classic sense such as their original purpose -- but they are useful to remind us how things were and how far we've come and what kind of problems were solved in what way by our predecessors.
Sure, but we can digitize them, offer them online, for free, for everyone, with OCR even with search features... There's no need to keep moldy originals anymore, unless they're "special" to someone (=someone wants to keep them).
Eg. there's a really nice collection of old yugoslav magazines and books online, that is fun to skm through while on the toilet or in bed (instead of reddit or youtube), but keping, preserving, dusting etc. all that paper would be a pain.
We can, but will we? And will we maintain those collections?
There is some resilience in having collections scattered here, there, and everywhere in addition to having a substantial chunk of history reliant on one charity that is constantly under threat due to copyright law.
History suggests that at some point the Internet Archive will be lost.
Additionally, a digital copy doesn't preserve the physical artifact. The ink, paper, and glue contains information about trade, printing technology, and perhaps the environment as well. We don't know what questions people will ask in the future.
I know you lose the experience of paper, but that experience is limited to the few that have the actual copies. Digital is available to everyone. I see more issues with more modern media, where eg. videogames cannot be played at all anymore, due to always-online drm and requiring backend servers that the publishers are shutting down (so even pirate cracks cannot help). For comparison, you can fit the whole NES and SNES library on a usb stick with space left over.
No argument there. On the other hand, we cannot preserve every last item. Seeming as these were described as publications, there would have been multiple copies produced. Hopefully the VCF did their research prior to disposal to ensure multiple copies still exist (that are accessible to people, in better condition, and in their original form).
Jason Scott certainly has the right to be upset about what happened. It takes time to put together and maintain a collection. He entrusted that collection in the VCF's care. There is probably very good reason why he ought to be upset. Chances are that someone else entrusted those publications to his care. If that is the case, the VCF managed to violate the trust that someone else placed in Jason Scott, and not just Jason Scott's trust in the VCF.
That being said, humanity creates mountains of stuff. We cannot afford to keep every last example, or even every last example that collectors manage to get their hands on. For all of this talk about the current generation not valuing old things and older generations preserving things for generations, well, that never really happened. At least not in the way people are suggesting. In most cases, those old things were "preserved" because they were significantly cheaper to maintain than to replace. Even in the case of publications, one would find that most libraries ended up disposing of publications and only a handful specialized in archiving materials.
In the end, what we should be doing is looking towards the future while keeping an eye on the past. By only looking forward, we miss the richness of our past and any lessons it may have to offer. By only looking to the past, we embracing stagnation and placing improvements in the human condition at risk. While the latter may sound extreme, we only have so many resources (even in our age of plenty).
It's always been like that unfortunately, but wait just a couple of centuries, and it will become valuable ;)