Are you talking about the cost of digitising? Or the cost of keeping paper records?
Because there's more to this than simply how expensive is the format that we keep them in. There's also how quick and easy it is to produce, to search, to share, to update. These are all positives when information is digitised that can't be done if your will is a piece of paper forgotton underneath your bed.
But the counter to this is that when it is digitised it becomes far easier to search, to share, and learn from. So there's that too.
You've misunderstood what I was commenting on. I am bemoaning the quality in general of the guardian as of late. Not the specific article.
The guardian is a good newspaper, don't get me wrong, but it was way better back in the day under the previous editor. The quality has absolutely dropped over the past six years or so and any balance to an article is often rendered right at the end under a clickbait headline. These things have changed.
Buy look, that's my opinion and you surely have yours. That's fine too π.
The answer seems simple. Digitise the wills and any of historical value as identified by an independent body made up of Twitter historians can keep the originals for prosperity and research π.
Digitise the lot and start with new wills. I understand the value to historians of keeping old pieces of paper but at some point the costs of that have to be evaluated against the benefits. You can't just say "it's of an unquantifiable amount therefore we need to keep them", that's such a lazy cop out.
In fact I'm increasingly frustrated that all legal documents aren't digitised. Shuffling paper around is so backwards and a nightmare to search and index efficiently.
If the EU will be the one to take this cunt down a peg then great. But I won't get my hopes up that this doesn't end with a slap on the wrist and money changing hands to make it go away.
I wouldn't expect anything more form the guardian. They've become pretty clickbait and reactionary lately. Quality has dipped.
In Such a Tumultuous Manner?
I find that if you type out the whole word, by swiping or individual letters, no matter how inaccurate your presses or swipes are it can guess the correct word with high accuracy. If you instead type out only a little bit of the word its ability to guess is shockingly bad. So it's better to scatter gun the whole word than try and type accurately but only type the word partially, if that makes sense.
What annoys me is that I swear it didn't use to take me trying to type the whole word before it guessed the correct word. So something has changed, yes.
Apple flexing their anti-competitive muscles again.
The EU will protect us, right.... Right?
Is there an example of AI generated images that aren't hyper realistic or have perfect bokeh? I'm taking about an out of focus shot or the subject looks like a regular slob like you and I?
Does your country have an e-waste recycling scheme?
I'm sorry but this wildly over simplifying the issue to the point that the copper pipe analogy and hyperbolic language isn't useful. I respectfully hard disagree with this characterisation for the reasons I've explained in my other reply.
Putting a will (or anything other legal documents) on paper must have seemed totally natural hundreds of years ago but at some point we need to accept that we have different needs for these documents and different ways of capturing them.
I totally agree with you about security. That should be a principle in all of this. But that shouldn't constrain us to recording on paper. If security is paramount then design a system whereby you can verify the veracity and authenticity of the digital document and create secured controls around their handling - hint these systems already exist today. Tampering and theft is certainly an issue but realistically so is it if you still had paper. It's not uncommon for paper to burn, I have been told π.
Any system is fallible, but that shouldn't mean we remove it from consideration.