What does this mean? Does this mean they’re trying to do something like Yelp and hold those reviews hostage?
What does this mean? Does this mean they’re trying to do something like Yelp and hold those reviews hostage?
True, but most orgs and devs would take the reliable monthly income rather than an unpredictable infusion every two years. If it’s a massive donor base, maybe those things even out. For smaller, active projects, I don’t mind giving a percentage to the bank knowing that they can rely on my donations every month. The larger annual gifts are usually reserved for orgs like clinics, food banks, and community institutions that can handle the fluctuations.
I think there may be a challenge or challenges that you haven’t pinned down yet. First is: what problem does this solve?
Second is, how will people know that they are housed under the same roof, so to speak? A small instance dedicated to NBA basketball may be interesting, but if it seems disconnected then people would be wary. Small specialty instances can be shut down without warning for all sort if reasons.A consortium of instances may help with this issue, as long as it is immediately clear through common branding that they are part if the same group.
Third is that different communities have different needs.
Don’t worry, deceptive sales are still allowed everywhere else…
Not specifically software, but I divide my donations into three categories - for my budget, that’s basically the $10-20 range, the $20-500 range, and $500-2000. I track the donations I make over the year, with a target in mind. For me, the target is 10% of income.
I decide which organizations are doing the most important work, and prioritize those. I try to donate monthly to those that I make use of regularly, then I give the rest as what comes up from day to day.
I consider free software to be a social good, so I don’t separate it from other giving.
Yeah I am morally okay with opposing Putin, the Ayatollah, Xi, Kim, Erdogan, Asad, and their ilk.
I don’t really understand how people don’t see that Russia, China, and Iran seem to be running a massive and coordinated effort to upend the world order.
As I read it, the article is comparing the two shows exactly to show why they shouldn’t be judged the same. But maybe I just don’t get it.
I used to say not the sharpest cookie in the jar
Sounds fishy
People have been choosing made up names from fiction for hundreds (thousands?) of years and as far I know, no one has died from it yet. Jessica is just a character from a play.
The data is not centralized in the same way, making it slightly better, but yeah. A lot of the same pitfalls of centralization happen there. The whole system doesn’t operate without the corporate servers in the middle, even though they don’t see or store the data. They have total access to Metadata. The organization could be sold for profit, shut down, change terms, etc.
If security is important, you’re better off with something decentralized like matrix. I’m not an expert, so hopefully, a lot of people here who are smarter than me will fact check these statements, but at least those are my impressions.
Maybe the fifth one is Jesus?
Cool, so literal calls for genocide are fine as long as it’s against the Jews.
Wait, the centralized service that security experts warned for years could be easily compromised because a centralized messaging service is inherently insecure has now been compromised? Surprised Pikachu face
So now we are just uncritically quoting Nasrallah and calling it reporting?
Related: https://youtu.be/HdozqSVF-VM
Fusion energy is still a distant pipe dream at this point. Don’t believe the hype.
I just can’t take all this free speech that’s happening right now