Many large non-profits actually make most of their money as returns from investments. The Mormon church is not at all unusual in this way - most large universities also make most of their money from investments. As an example, when I reviewed the Universty of Texas finances in 2019 I think it was, they could have charged zero tuition for every student across every campus and still would have had a positive net income for the year. Massive endowments are useful for this exact purpose - allowing operations even without any outside contributions.
This is what you get if you hire professors who assign writing exercises but are incapable of writing basic coherent emails with punctuation, and are unable to read the very plain text below a ChatGPT response that it may not be accurate.
And the perpetual tale of the forum post that says "this has been asked before, use the search" and the first search result is this person saying to use search
Literally on your own link and in the same sentence:
"Presently, NPR receives funding for less than 1% of its budget directly from the federal government, but receives almost 10% of its budget from federal, state, and local governments indirectly."
I had a really bad dell monitor experience this year too. I had a still image on the monitor for 30 minutes and it caused extreme permanent burn in. Returned it and got the cheapest no name monitor with the same specs and it’s been great and half the price
They carefully flood their tweets with likes from bot farms and once there’s a lot of inorganic activity it leads to a ton of visibility and therefore further organic activity
You should do what everyone else does. Buy the same monitor on Amazon and return your broken one to Amazon. Mostly joking but I wouldn’t fault anyone they did bc Amazon is awful
> Any church run as a business should not be considered a church at all.
Virtually every nonprofit is run nearly the same way as a regular business. They still make profits, the only differences are restrictions around distributing income to owners and some mild accountability in how funds are spent.
Laws don’t determine rights. You’re infringing on copyright, not stealing something. And we all know IP laws are horrendously broken. And I’d argue that your rights from an ethical perspective are extremely broad and you can basically do whatever you want with intellectual property as long as you’re not harming the actual creators (not owners).
I believe even in airplane mode it’s been shown that your phone will still send general location data back to your carrier once back online but I don’t recall specifics
Yeah it really rubs me wrong that smart devices do this. I OWN it. This isn’t a person. It’s a fucking computer and I don’t need lectures on language I use in my own home on my own devices. I’ll speak to my property however I want
The only reason nuclear doesn’t compete with cheap is because we require 100% capture of waste for nuclear and effectively none for things like coal. Require coal burning to not emit any pollution and nuclear becomes 100x relatively cheaper
Governments should have to earn the right to invade everyone’s privacy and act in authoritarian ways. Give me a 30 year track record of outstanding governance with real, working checks and balances that have resulted in zero abuse or misuse.
Here’s valid feedback: don’t use ridiculous language (team change), treat us like adults. We know what this is. Don’t turn a message about layoffs into a marketing puff piece about Shopify’s mission to save kittens and make rainbows. Own up to literally any amount of accountability, and be real as for the reasons this is happening (we hired these people knowing the risk we may need to lay them off - we were wrong and now you suffer as a consequence)
You can’t be serious. We need porn to stop ugly men from raping women?
I’m pro ethical pornography. But still this is a weird argument for it.
The only argument that matters is whether the person making pornography is consenting to it and isn’t being taken advantage of. That second part is very tricky with a very wide spectrum of opinions.
I think the higher stance is to report as a journalist and not exercise your own bias into when you choose to publish. And regardless, if you choose to delay it, your source will simply go to someone who won't. There's never an instance where it makes sense to delay, and it never makes sense to decline to write on reputable information, since it's not like wikileaks has a monopoly on journalism
they do and they inarguably are. there is not any evidence at all that they have received reputable and material information and declined to report on it
I've admittedly had very little free time these days, but as someone who's trying to get caught up with the field, I feel like it moves faster than I can keep up with
I feel like this is a silly connection to make. Literally any technology is useful for killing people, it's just a matter of how much it's useful only for killing people. Common sense understanding has world changing applications.
Most of the existing power structures that exist today have very little democratic control over them. The concentration of wealth has effectively zero democratic control, and wealthy people overwhelmingly control the entirety of how the planet operates. Even in the American election system, the primary elections of our two party structure are extremely undemocratic, and we're only allowed to viably vote on candidates that are chosen in their very undemocratic way. The problem compounds itself too when factoring in that voting decisions are overwhelmingly determined by media coverage, and media coverage is dictated entirely by billionaires.