646
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] ragingHungryPanda@lemmy.zip 110 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)
[-] tal@lemmy.today 30 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

I mean, the bar to go get a reference book to look something up is significantly higher than "pull my smartphone out of my pocket and tap a few things in".

Here's an article from 1945 on what the future of information access might look like.

https://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/unbound/flashbks/computer/bushf.htm

The Atlantic Monthly | July 1945

"As We May Think"

by Vannevar Bush

Eighty years ago, the stuff that was science fiction to the people working on the cutting edge of technology looks pretty unremarkable, even absurdly conservative, to us in 2025:

Like dry photography, microphotography still has a long way to go. The basic scheme of reducing the size of the record, and examining it by projection rather than directly, has possibilities too great to be ignored. The combination of optical projection and photographic reduction is already producing some results in microfilm for scholarly purposes, and the potentialities are highly suggestive. Today, with microfilm, reductions by a linear factor of 20 can be employed and still produce full clarity when the material is re-enlarged for examination. The limits are set by the graininess of the film, the excellence of the optical system, and the efficiency of the light sources employed. All of these are rapidly improving.

Assume a linear ratio of 100 for future use. Consider film of the same thickness as paper, although thinner film will certainly be usable. Even under these conditions there would be a total factor of 10,000 between the bulk of the ordinary record on books, and its microfilm replica. The Encyclopoedia Britannica could be reduced to the volume of a matchbox. A library of a million volumes could be compressed into one end of a desk. If the human race has produced since the invention of movable type a total record, in the form of magazines, newspapers, books, tracts, advertising blurbs, correspondence, having a volume corresponding to a billion books, the whole affair, assembled and compressed, could be lugged off in a moving van. Mere compression, of course, is not enough; one needs not only to make and store a record but also be able to consult it, and this aspect of the matter comes later. Even the modern great library is not generally consulted; it is nibbled at by a few.

Compression is important, however, when it comes to costs. The material for the microfilm Britannica would cost a nickel, and it could be mailed anywhere for a cent. What would it cost to print a million copies? To print a sheet of newspaper, in a large edition, costs a small fraction of a cent. The entire material of the Britannica in reduced microfilm form would go on a sheet eight and one-half by eleven inches. Once it is available, with the photographic reproduction methods of the future, duplicates in large quantities could probably be turned out for a cent apiece beyond the cost of materials.

If the user wishes to consult a certain book, he taps its code on the keyboard, and the title page of the book promptly appears before him, projected onto one of his viewing positions. Frequently-used codes are mnemonic, so that he seldom consults his code book; but when he does, a single tap of a key projects it for his use. Moreover, he has supplemental levers. On deflecting one of these levers to the right he runs through the book before him, each page in turn being projected at a speed which just allows a recognizing glance at each. If he deflects it further to the right, he steps through the book 10 pages at a time; still further at 100 pages at a time. Deflection to the left gives him the same control backwards.

A special button transfers him immediately to the first page of the index. Any given book of his library can thus be called up and consulted with far greater facility than if it were taken from a shelf. As he has several projection positions, he can leave one item in position while he calls up another. He can add marginal notes and comments, taking advantage of one possible type of dry photography, and it could even be arranged so that he can do this by a stylus scheme, such as is now employed in the telautograph seen in railroad waiting rooms, just as though he had the physical page before him.

[-] ragingHungryPanda@lemmy.zip 5 points 3 weeks ago

That's a neat find!

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 3 weeks ago

Well, where would you download them? Or if you're talking about printed books: where would you order them? See?

[-] Natanox@discuss.tchncs.de 23 points 3 weeks ago

Never before has anyone accomplished to make me want to throw a whole library in its entirety at them, including the building. Good job.

[-] TeamAssimilation@infosec.pub 9 points 3 weeks ago

My town library was ridiculously small. Not everyone has the same opportunities.

But we do used books anyway, they were usually the encyclopedia, the dictionary, and text books.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] PancakesCantKillMe@lemmy.world 15 points 3 weeks ago

Back in the very early 90’s I had a salesman from Britannica show up on my doorstep. I was amenable and ended up buying a set of encyclopedias. I loved them partially because I love books, but I also loved that I had all this information at the ready even if frozen in the time when they were printed.

Now we have the internet and it’s nice and all, but I wish I still had those books.

[-] Death_Equity@lemmy.world 13 points 3 weeks ago

The Britannica was one of those essential things for every home. It was like having a home computer. It contained as complete a collection of human knowledge that was possible without a full-blown library.

I remember in the 90s looking through them trying to answer a random question I had and then later on going to the library to check out more research material if the Brittanica didn't satisfy my curiosity.

As great as the internet is, I miss running a finger across the tomes to learn something new about the world.

[-] leadore@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago

We had a set of encyclopedias at home when I was a kid and also one called Childcraft that was written for kids. They were great. I spent a lot of time browsing and reading them.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] tal@lemmy.today 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

IIRC, they no longer print it, but you can probably buy used collections.

kagis

Yeah. The final print edition was 2010:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica

The Encyclopædia Britannica (Latin for 'British Encyclopaedia') is a general-knowledge English-language encyclopaedia. It has been published by Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. since 1768, although the company has changed ownership seven times. The 2010 version of the 15th edition, which spans 32 volumes[1] and 32,640 pages, was the last printed edition. Since 2016, it has been published exclusively as an online encyclopaedia at the website Britannica.com

Printed for 244 years, the Britannica was the longest-running in-print encyclopaedia in the English language. It was first published between 1768 and 1771 in Edinburgh, Scotland, in three volumes.

Copyright (well, under US law, and I assume elsewhere) also doesn't restrict actually making copies, but distributing those copies. If you want to print out a hard copy of the entire Encyclopedia Britannica website for your own use in the event of Armageddon, I imagine that there's probably software that will let you do that.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] jbone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 3 weeks ago

Not quiet an encyclopedia, but as a child I really liked The Top 10 of Everything books.

This was late the late 90s, we had dial-up, but internet was still in its infancy.

I definitely had the 1999 and 1998 editions:

Microsoft Encarta was also mind-blowing for its time, especially if your were a child in the late 90s and early 2000s.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] leadore@lemmy.world 49 points 3 weeks ago

Thinking that people couldn't find things out before google is naive and just sets you up to believe whatever shit google tells you.

Getting misinformation from the internet is worse than not being able to find the information, and far worse than getting valid information you have to look up in a book/publication.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] bacon_pdp@lemmy.world 41 points 3 weeks ago

Have you not ever been to a library?

Librarians are the best people to talk to about finding information about where and what is available for you to learn more.

Seriously get to a library and talk to them, they are wonderful.

[-] Peppycito@sh.itjust.works 9 points 3 weeks ago

That's true! I'm married to a librarian and she'd love to help you find information!

But in the 80's she'd help you find the sentence about your topic in the World Book. And put your name on the list for the book they had about the topic that's been overdue for a year and a half.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] qfe0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 3 weeks ago

Yeah, but then you've got to go to a library, which is great and all, but you might not get to that during the commercial break.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] fodor@lemmy.zip 26 points 3 weeks ago

How to say you're young without saying you're young, lol. Some people, boomers even, remember a time before Google existed and people used other search engines.

[-] jrs100000@lemmy.world 17 points 3 weeks ago

And before that we had tiny wikipedia's written on paper.

[-] MBM@lemmings.world 5 points 3 weeks ago

Or you could ask that one friend

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] A_Union_of_Kobolds@lemmy.world 23 points 3 weeks ago

Motion to change it to "before Wikipedia", since that's not evil

[-] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 23 points 3 weeks ago

Wikipedia is way better for learning shit than google anyway.

[-] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 weeks ago

Especially lately

[-] Bluewing@lemmy.world 23 points 3 weeks ago

All you needed to do was get up off your arse, travel to a library, (business hours only), and dig through a card catalog for outdated information on the subject you were interested in. Bonus difficulty: Needing to wait a week for your library to get the outdated book you needed because it was in a different town.

Today all information is available at any time-- 24/7365. Bonus difficulty: Sorting through all the AI bullshit to glean the correct information on a subject you know very little about.

[-] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 15 points 3 weeks ago

Don’t you know the Dewey decimal system?

[-] Capybara_mdp@reddthat.com 10 points 3 weeks ago

Y’all heard of librarians right? They do a little more than stack books. Most are accredited professional researchers who can find what you’re looking for, or try to get it for you.

Talk to more humans and kindly please support your local libraries.

[-] Redex68@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago

I mean I'm not gonna go ask a librarian how big of a laser I'd need to destroy the moon or why "1"+" 1" is "11" but "1"-" 1" is 0 in JavaScript

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] leadore@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago

And you still have to go to a university library if you want any scientific papers and research knowledge, because most of it is behind a paywall and only universities can afford to subscribe to the journals.

[-] HugeNerd@lemmy.ca 21 points 3 weeks ago

That's dumb. Houses I recall from childhood in the '80s were filled with books. Encyclopedias for kids, books about animals, history, etc. Libraries were a walk away. Schools had libraries (and in my case, the librarian looked just like Janet from Three's Company and built the same. I was at the library a lot.). TV had plenty of educational stuff.

And how's the newfangled Google knowledge world panning out so far? Lots of people getting informed?

[-] Wolf@lemmy.today 7 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

I grew up poor and we couldn't afford a set of encyclopedias. We lived in the country so libraries were not a walk away. I never even thought to ask my friends if they had encyclopedias when visiting their houses and having this happen.

Encyclopedias were also somewhat limited. It could be useful if you were wondering what the main export of the Democratic Republic of the Congo was, but if you were wondering what strategy to use to beat the final boss in Ninja Gaiden you were likely out of luck (I know, I know, these are terrible examples It's 3:30am, cut me some slack).

TV had plenty of educational stuff

Sure, but it's not like you could be sitting there with your friend and be like "I wonder what the most common name in the world is?" and turn on the TV to the answer to your question.

Plus you weren't always at somebodies house, you could be on a hike or at the lake and think of a question.

There were a lot of times back in the day where I would think of an interesting question and then by the time I got to a place where I could research it, I had forgotten all about it. I guess I could have and probably should have carried around a little notebook and wrote those questions down. Hindsight is 20/20

And how’s the newfangled Google knowledge world panning out so far? Lots of people getting informed?

Pretty great honestly. I can't speak for other people but now when I have one of those "I wonder about X topic" moments I actually just look up the answer.

It even took me a while to catch up to the fact that it was now an option. I remember several times when I first got a smart phone and I would have the "I just thought of something I would like to know more about" experience and then forget that I had the ability to find out an embarrassing amount of times before it finally got to the point where it's second nature to look it up now.

[-] gerowen@lemmy.world 21 points 3 weeks ago

Libraries and encyclopedias. We had a set of encyclopedias, New World I think, and much later got Brittanica on CD-ROM.

[-] elucubra@sopuli.xyz 3 points 3 weeks ago

I lived in Pittsburgh during my formative years. Pittsburgh has an awesome library system, with world class libraries like the Carnegie library, and each universitie's libraries, plus all the local libraries. I spent quite a bit of time in these. The net adds convenience, and some niche things, but it's not the information, it's having it in your pocket.

Also, you have to sift through a lot of bullshit.

[-] TeamAssimilation@infosec.pub 17 points 3 weeks ago

Meanwhile in 2025:

  • User: ChatGPT, tell me about $OBSCURE_TOPIC.
  • ChatGPT: Sure, I will explain. You see, $CONFIDENT_EXPOSITION.
  • User: Hmmm. That doesn’t feel quite right, but I’m too lazy too fact check it. That’ll do.
[-] Brunbrun6766@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago

I think you mean

-User: Okay repeats this as if it's now fact because the computer said so

Most people don't seem to be even capable of questioning the shit answer the AI gives them

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] DiskCrasher@lemmy.world 15 points 3 weeks ago

Encyclopedia Britannica was the answer.

[-] BeBopaLula@piefed.ca 15 points 3 weeks ago

I seemed to have no issue back in the day finding what I needed. Just not as easy.

[-] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 8 points 3 weeks ago

Honestly though, you could never be certain how accurate it was. You could be certain it was probably several years out of date.

[-] fartographer@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

My parents got my sisters and ~~I~~me the digital Encyclopedia Britannica and purchased any available updates. Pretty fucking sweet, looking back on it.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] breecher@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 weeks ago

Yeah, this has nothing to do with the internet. It is just about lazy vs. not lazy. The exact same scenario happens today, despite the internet.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] utopiah@lemmy.world 14 points 3 weeks ago

You had... a dictionary at home, maybe an encyclopedia, but if you didn't you could call a librarian and ask them if they had any reference on any topic. It took minutes when they were opened rather than seconds any time but... no ads, no tracking, serendipity yet no distraction, was it actually worst then?

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] logicbomb@lemmy.world 11 points 3 weeks ago

I remember they used to have door-to-door encyclopedia salesmen. Thinking back on it, we had book stores back then, so people could have gotten encyclopedias from there, so how did encyclopedia salesmen make any sales??

At any rate, at some point, my parents had purchased a short set of encyclopedias. They weren't as good as the ones at the school or library, but it was something like 4-5 large books.

And despite what people think today, I don't think those encyclopedias were as good or as accurate as Wikipedia is today. Wikipedia is so nice. If you want to know more about a part that's not covered well in the article, you can just go look at the source.

[-] palordrolap@fedia.io 5 points 3 weeks ago

My parents recently got rid of a set of encyclopedias that they'd had in the house since at least the '90s. I don't actually remember where they came from or exactly when they were suddenly there, but recently they got rid of them (donated to charity) and I was a little offended - not that I said as much - that they didn't offer them to me.

They weren't even recent. They were printed in the early '50s, but in my parents' (still) no-Internet house, those encyclopedias were a good pastime.

There are usually several sets of the same available on eBay, but 1) the good sets are a bit out of my price range, 2) I have internet here and 3) I'm already hoarding far too much stuff.

[-] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 11 points 3 weeks ago

What did you think we had encyclopedias for?!

[-] resipsaloquitur@lemmy.world 9 points 3 weeks ago
[-] BackgrndNoize@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago

This comic is stupid, and likely a made to farm comments and up votes, if there weren't enough curious people willing to put in effort to learn we wouldn't have advanced as much as we have today and no doubt Google makes looking things up easier, but look around you, how many people actually bother to even do that, plus it also makes it easier to find results that people can feed into their own misinformation, that they've predecided is the right answer

[-] ballgoat@lemmy.zip 4 points 3 weeks ago

I thought the comic was supposed to be funny. I found it amusing. Maybe I’m just dumb lol. But I mean, I used to read the dictionary and especially the encyclopedia, go to the library, all sorts of stuff before the internet. It was fun.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] mfed1122@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 3 weeks ago

I really wish this just said life before the internet.

[-] Brkdncr@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago

I was watching an old movie last night and there were short references to odd things like one was a book from the 1890s.

When I saw the movie for the first time back in the 1980s I probably had no idea why the book was referenced and would have assumed it was made up as filler.

Now, armed with the internet, I can look it up and immediately understand that the script was still trash.

[-] bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 weeks ago

I definitely notice that wonder has died with a lot of people. Luckily I try to be a luddite and enjoy life without tech as well as with. Still have tons of books. Shut the internet off every so often.

[-] hopesdead@startrek.website 3 points 3 weeks ago

When I was introduced to Google, my relatives were using it to look up video game cheat codes. I think we even looked up walk through for Driver. That tutorial was absurdly fucking difficult. A group of like 10 people couldn’t complete it for hours.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2025
646 points (100.0% liked)

Comic Strips

18504 readers
1897 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS