| |
| ▲ | nomel 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Relevant text from TFA: > This isn’t the first time the environmental agency has tried to shutter the online web archive. In late January 2022, the Biden administration EPA announced plans to discontinue the online repository, citing burdensome financial upkeep; through a Freedom of Information Act request, Gehrke was able to determine that the agency spent roughly $2 million a year to maintain it. A coalition of environmentalists, historians, and librarians swiftly condemned the decision, with groups like the EDGI and American Society for Environmental History calling the announcement “alarming” and cause for a “tremendous gap” in the historical record. > After five months of public backlash, the EPA acquiesced, in part by announcing it would delay the web archive’s retirement by one year to July 2023. | | |
| ▲ | Grombobulous 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | $2 million a year is wildly insignificant for the federal government. Less than one cent per year per person in federal taxes. | | |
| ▲ | Ntrails 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | And yet the number of projects with similarly insignificant costs is large, and they do add up. The argument cannot be "this money doesn't matter", it has to be "this represents good value for money" (imo) | | |
| ▲ | Grombobulous an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | They literally don’t add up. Just look at a pie chart of the US government budget. The administrative state is a bargain. Departments like the EPA are so small that they have to be put in the “other” umbrella that makes up 1% of federal spending (go to the Agency tab): https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/feder... | | |
| ▲ | pestat0m an hour ago | parent [-] | | sad, the spending chart doesn't load in my version of firefox, and both links in the caption also have page-load issues. very sad. | | |
| |
| ▲ | ninjagoo an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > "this represents good value for money" (imo) Wouldn't you say this archive represents good value for the money? A nation that forgets its past is a nation that repeats its mistakes. | |
| ▲ | blurbleblurble an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | This is so disingenuous. We all know where the money goes. |
| |
| ▲ | parineum 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The epa doesn't have access to the federal budget | | |
| ▲ | Grombobulous an hour ago | parent [-] | | That’s not really the point, the point is that $2 million isn’t a lot of money for a service that is for the benefit of over 300 million people. | | |
| ▲ | kulahan 10 minutes ago | parent [-] | | It serves a lot more than just the citizens of the US, for what it's worth. |
|
| |
| ▲ | pfisch 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Ok, but I could replicate this process and archive for under $20,000k per year(probably way under) and set it up in less than 1 day with claude... | | |
| ▲ | Grombobulous an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | I’ll come back in 3 days and you can share the link with your web archive. I’ll Venmo you $20 for your Claude pro subscription. | | |
| ▲ | nomel an hour ago | parent [-] | | Looking at the 2024 to 2025 archive, it's around 1TB/year: https://app.browsertrix.com/explore/usgov-archive/collection... If that's true, something has clearly gone wildly wrong with the, most likely several, departments involved/created with maintaining this. I suspect if you look at the breakdown, it's 90% administrative costs, with the rest being inflated Cisco contracts, or whatever other parasite latched on. As others have said, it's been archived already. |
| |
| ▲ | fooqux 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You've obviously never worked in government before. The technology is likely not the issue; the bureaucracy is. |
|
|
|
|
