As if the software was as permanent as the hardware lol
There's no guarantee that the software will ever be updated to something that the user finds usable though.
Google could just one day go "meh, we don't think folding displays are where we want to be right now", and - ta-da! - you're left with a folding doorstop and Google's got yet another entry on the "killed by Google" list.
As another poster has mentioned, M-Discs are written using a Blu-ray writer and are good for a few hundred years, in theory.
Blu-Ray USB drive and M-Discs is about the best you can get at present. Keep the drive unplugged when not in use, it'll probably last 10-20 years in storage.
Seeing as there hasn't been much advance past Blu-ray, keep an eye out for something useful to replace it in the future, or at least get another drive when you notice them becoming scarce.
90% of users when they are presented with the UAC popup when they do something:
"Yes yes whateverrr"
Never understood why smartphones are so super bright by default.
Because they have to compete with 50k lux outside and then scale to 600 lux indoors, then down to just to a few lux in a darkened room.
Perhaps the brightness slider needs to be more logarithmic so you can slide from 0.001 percent to 100 percent more easily.
I've got photos in Flickr dating from 1999 onwards. Ten thousand or so of them, and a couple of the early ones are now corrupted.
But they are my "other backup" for Google photos so I don't mind too much. I also have a USB Blu-ray drive at home that I use to periodically burn M-Discs that I hand out to a few relatives.
That's about as good as I can conveniently do for backup, and it's probably better than the single-point-of-failure box of negatives that my parents have in their cupboard.
when they're powered down.
There's no periodic cell refresh in flash memory like there is in DRAM. When USB sticks are plugged in, all you are doing is powering up the flash chip and interface ICs.
You'd have to read a block then write it back to actually refresh the stored charges in the cells.
I don't think there's anything commercially available that can do it.
However, as an experiment, you could:
You could probably/eventually script this kind of operation if you have software that can automatically identify and group images.
Dammit now I have to reduce the block size of my discord-based cold storage filesystem.
They need to learn how to use their tools better. Winscp does all that transparently for you if you press F4 on a file on a remote system. Or maybe they did and you just didn't see it.....
It's quite a handy function when you're diving through endless layers of directories on a remote box looking for one config file amongst many.
Most times what I get when asking it coding questions is a half-baked response that has a logic error or five in it.
Once I query it about one of those errors it replies with, "You're right, X should be Y because of (technical reason Z). Here's the updated code that fixes it".
It will then give me some code that does actually work, but does dumb things, like recalculating complex but static values inside a loop. When I ask if there's any performance improvements it can do, suddenly it's full of helpful ways to improve the code that can make it run 10 to 100 times faster and fix those issues. Apparently if I want performant code, I have to explicitly ask for it.
For some things it will offer solutions that don't solve the issue that I raise, no matter how many different ways I phrase the issue and try and coax it towards a solution. At that point, it basically can't, and it gets bogged down to minor alterations that don't really achieve anything.
Sometimes when it hits that point I can say "start again, and use (this methodology)" and it will suddenly hit upon a solution that's workable.
So basically, right now it's good for regurgitating some statistically plausible information that can be further refined with a couple of good questions from your side.
Of course, for that to work you have to know the domain you're working in fairly well already otherwise you're shit out of luck.
If library devs do versioning correctly, and you pin to major versions like "1.*" instead of just the "anything goes" of "*", this should not happen.
Your unit tests should catch regressions, if you have enough unit tests. And of course you do, because we're all operating in the dream world of, "I am great and everyone else is shit".