I stuck to the threats you mentioned. Paper in a file room is more slightly more quake-resistant and bomb-resistant than digital. But slower to move to safety if the threat is large volcanic eruptions.

I am not saying that paper is magically perfect. Nor better in every situation. I am saying that paper is far easier (than digital) to do well for use cases like a national records collection. "Correctly" may include off-site backups - whether or not your threat model includes massive earthquakes, volcanoes, bombs, special forces, EMP weapons, biological agents, civil war, radioactive fallout, or enemy occupation. Or "Management wouldn't pay for a done-right facility".

As I noted in another comment, the largest downside to paper (within such use cases), is that it is far more difficult to get political support for old-fashioned stuff that just works, compared to anything that can be sold as cool/new/high-tech. Especially when the taxpayer-funded revenue streams from selling/installing/supporting the tech create incentives clearly contrary to the taxpaper's long-term interests.

Problems with well-known solutions 100 years ago:

"Fireproof file rooms and cabinets in the 1920s were crucial for protecting business and government records during the rapid expansion of the industrial era. The era saw a massive shift from flammable wooden office furniture to robust, steel-based storage designed to resist both fire and water damage."

That's a Google AI summary - but I've been in a fair number of buildings with such rooms. Thick concrete walls, heavy steel fire doors, no other openings, nothing but steel file cabinets in 'em, sealed electric light fixtures that look like they belong in a powder magazine (where one spark could kill everyone) - it's really simple tech.

And "high ground" was a reliable flood protection tech several centuries before that.

No politician ever got elected by supporting simple, old-fashioned stuff that just worked.

Far better coverage of the broader subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_meridional_overturnin...

> What can be done?

> Iceland’s environment minister, Jóhann Páll Jóhannsson, recently said that the latest research is shocking. Without decision-makers taking rapid action to cut fossil fuel emissions in the next decades, he warned, Iceland could become “nearly uninhabitable for our children and grandchildren”.

> [...]

> Preventing such a collapse ultimately comes down to one thing: cutting CO2 emissions, scientists emphasise. Any extra warming or prolonged overshoot of 1.5°C increases the risk of triggering an AMOC tipping point.

Unfortunately, the Nordic countries and N. Europe are not all that near & dear to the folks currently responsible for the great majority of the world's CO2 emissions. Especially not when the causal connection between "I enjoy my carbon-heavy lifestyle now" and "bad things eventually happen...mostly far away" is, in many human minds, so murky.

Sad to say, but the Nordics & N. Europe should be starting preparations for worst-case changes.

Sadly, "nail in coffin" is an exaggeration. Though the press would be throwing that phrase around. With plenty of dire-sounding quotes from cheap PC manufacturers.

Limiting cannibalization wouldn't be hard. Just load up a Neo, a 13" Air, and a 15" Air on the Apple web store's Compare page - a 15" or 16" Neo would be the "obviously lesser" laptop by 90% of the metrics.

My bet is that Apple has prototypes of the larger variant, and is waiting to see how the situation develops.