> No. The first copy-equivalent is the original data.
Ah, got it.
> Millions of people buy computers with 1+TB hard drives and then use less than 10% of the space.
See that's the bit that's weird to me. My OS drives are small SSD's and the spinning platters are all comfortably full.
I will say though, I'm replicating once onsite and once offsite so my own redundancy is pretty high. If I could get over the 'someone else having physical access' thing (I don't use cloud for most personal data) I suppose IPFS or equivalent would be cool.
> See that's the bit that's weird to me. My OS drives are small SSD's and the spinning platters are all comfortably full.
You have to remember that you know what you're doing. You know how much space you need and you know how to add more later, so you don't buy more than you need.
The typical person buys a 2TB hard drive because they have "thousands of photos" and the 2TB drive is only $15 more than the 0.5TB drive, even though "thousands of photos" consume like 0.005TB.
And they're rational to do it because they know they aren't good at predicting whether they will fill the smaller drive and it's worth $15 to hedge against the ordeal of adding more storage later.
Which means many people will buy a 2TB drive and use it to store 75GB of data.
Ah, got it.
> Millions of people buy computers with 1+TB hard drives and then use less than 10% of the space.
See that's the bit that's weird to me. My OS drives are small SSD's and the spinning platters are all comfortably full.
I will say though, I'm replicating once onsite and once offsite so my own redundancy is pretty high. If I could get over the 'someone else having physical access' thing (I don't use cloud for most personal data) I suppose IPFS or equivalent would be cool.