Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Yeah, that's right.

These are numbers incomprehensibly big. Nobody can even begin to mentally picture these in a reasonable fashion. The only part of the statement that is really important is the meaning, not the details of the numbers. That meaning is "we are creating shittons of data really really fast, faster than ever before". If you're getting hung up on the accuracy of the numbers used to express this, then you're missing the point, and I wonder why you don't have something better to do than get worked up about it...

EDIT: Furthermore, according to the "more accurate" statement form the article, we're creating 23 Exabytes in 7 days, not 5. Read it again: "_23 Exabytes_ of information was recorded and replicated in 2002. We now record and transfer _that much_ information every _7 days_."



To me, the difference between "23 exabytes every 7 days" and "5 exabytes every 3 days" is pretty irrelevant.

I think a better quote would be "By 2003, mankind had generated a shitload of information. Now we generate a shitload every day."


Exactly, the entire point of the quote was to get across the absurd magnitude of growth that we're seeing in a way that anybody can understand.

If you care enough about numbers and can figure out how to say it more accurately... more power to you I guess? Doesn't change the effectiveness of the quote though.


Using shitload as a unit of data: sarcasm or serious?


It's not a unit, it's a magnitude or count. Used in similar situations as "a lot". It's neither 'sarcastic' nor 'serious', but rather 'casual'.




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2026 batch! Applications are open till July 27.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: