mike_bob
5 hours ago
Take note Republicans (which I'm doubting many even care anymore), your party thinks short term profits for a few are more important than science and the environment for all.
brightball
5 hours ago
EPA planned to do the same thing in 2022...
https://web.archive.org/web/20220124192618/https://archive.e...
nomel
4 hours ago
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
3 hours ago
$2 million a year is wildly insignificant for the federal government.
Less than one cent per year per person in federal taxes.
stuaxo
17 minutes ago
Its tiny, setting up traffic lights on some road junction might cost similar.
Ntrails
3 hours ago
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
2 hours ago
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...
ninjagoo
2 hours ago
> "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.
mnky9800n
35 minutes ago
The checks that add up are the social security checks cashed by the quarter or so of baby boomers who don’t need them.
blurbleblurble
2 hours ago
This is so disingenuous. We all know where the money goes.
parineum
3 hours ago
The epa doesn't have access to the federal budget
Grombobulous
2 hours ago
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
an hour ago
It serves a lot more than just the citizens of the US, for what it's worth.
pfisch
3 hours ago
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
2 hours ago
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
2 hours ago
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
3 hours ago
You've obviously never worked in government before. The technology is likely not the issue; the bureaucracy is.