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.
> 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 million a year is wildly insignificant for the federal government.
Less than one cent per year per person in federal taxes.
stuaxo
Its tiny, setting up traffic lights on some road junction might cost similar.
parineum
The epa doesn't have access to the federal budget
Grombobulous
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
It serves a lot more than just the citizens of the US, for what it's worth.
Ntrails
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
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):
Edward Tufte, “The only worse design than a pie chart is several of them.”
The “1% other” is more compelling.
Grombobulous
The link I shared wasn't even a pie chart, so when I said "pie chart" I was speaking in a colloquial sense.
pestat0m
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.
Sabinus
Works for me on 158.0.1
ninjagoo
> "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.
Ntrails
> Wouldn't you say this archive represents good value for the money?
Yes, that's the point. Not "this is so cheap it's irrelevant" but "this is an important resource worth funding".
blurbleblurble
This is so disingenuous. We all know where the money goes.
mnky9800n
The checks that add up are the social security checks cashed by the quarter or so of baby boomers who don’t need them.
no-name-here
Is the suggestion that social security (a (progressive) program where people largely pay in) should be replaced with a welfare type program? Or if we're just talking about biggest expenditures, things like the 1) Medicare, 2) other gov health spending, and 3) interest paid on the debt are far larger than the item your comment mentioned.
expedition32
A program that is only used by poor people will immediately be scrapped. Never underestimate the seething hatred that the middle class has for the underclass. Besides all that social security money goes straight into the economy.
pfisch
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
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
Looking at the 2024 to 2025 archive, it's around 1TB/year:
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.
kolinko
Did you set up a working backup with Claude? It is still extremely difficult to do right.
If you did please, please share your setup. And how you audited it.
fooqux
You've obviously never worked in government before. The technology is likely not the issue; the bureaucracy is.
unholythree
Would have been nice if DOGE had worked on stuff like this instead of performative cruelty.
[deleted]
Comment removed.
SetTheorist
Only one party is systematically attacking research and destroying irreplaceable archives.
9dev
Don’t make this a Both-sides thing please. There’s a clear difference between those who are working hard to void any environmental protection we have, and those who oppose that.
Kodiack
Why yes, 10-minute-old account with random letters for a name and one single comment, both sides are absolutely the same and people just shouldn’t feel encouraged to vote am I right?
You’re not even remotely subtle smh
baggachipz
Wouldn't want any of that pesky true climate-change-proving data available, now would we?
amelius
We have alternative facts now.
schiffern
"There'd be fewer cases if you stopped testing..."
I think Archive Team might have scraped it, but their site is down due to PHP-related reasons at the moment.
arjie
Thank you. I'm going to scrape for now but I hope there's a bulk download available somewhere eventually.
totetsu
Next thing the moon landing hoax will become part of Americas curriculum ala Interstellar
Madmallard
Why are companies allowed to remove themselves from the web archive?
They shouldn't be.
jacquesm
They're not. Someone on HN said that they just mark it as unavailable but they still keep it, I don't know what the expiry is on that though, or if they could be forced to actually delete something 'for real'. Nor do I know how you'd verify that beyond doubt.
vfclists
Where are r/archiveteam when you need them?
pstuart
If they weren't afraid of the data being public they wouldn't be removing it.
The only saving grace of this administration is that their incompetence helps to slow down their evilness.
dyauspitr
Everything bad is good for this administration.
40four
This isn’t really a Trump thing. It says they’ve been trying to shut the thing down since 2022
amclennon
I hate to say this because it's so overused, but this move is certainly veering into 1984 territory
KETHERCORTEX
Or Rollerball
rtuin
Wiping and rewriting history is straight from 1984 (novel). It's insane US let this happen.
icantevenhold
The adverb “quietly” has become such an AI smell to me, even if it’s probably not one in this instance.
Don't let AI tells ruin professional writing for you.
OnlineTux
That must be why the kids are always saying "lowkey".
Kapura
well, they certainly aren't advertising it, are they?
mahboi
Well, they didn't call the archive load-bearing
jimmiles
I hate the click-bait smell of "quietly". For me it's in the same category as "eviscerated." The hyperbole factory rolls ever onward...
cucumber3732842
There's this whiff of snooty superiority all over the word "quietly" that I just don't like. I can't quite put my finger on it but it's like I'm being talked down to.
https://web.archive.org/web/20220124192618/https://archive.e...
> 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.
Less than one cent per year per person in federal taxes.
The argument cannot be "this money doesn't matter", it has to be "this represents good value for money" (imo)
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...
Stephen Few, “Save the Pies for Dessert” (https://www.perceptualedge.com/articles/visual_business_inte...)
Edward Tufte, “The only worse design than a pie chart is several of them.”
The “1% other” is more compelling.
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.
Yes, that's the point. Not "this is so cheap it's irrelevant" but "this is an important resource worth funding".
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.
If you did please, please share your setup. And how you audited it.
You’re not even remotely subtle smh
Related:
The EPA plans to sunset its online archive - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30795719 - March 2022
They shouldn't be.
The only saving grace of this administration is that their incompetence helps to slow down their evilness.
Don't let AI tells ruin professional writing for you.