Not if his net worth drops enough to the point that a few lawsuits can drain what’s left of his assets.
If Alex Jones can be ordered to pay nearly a billion dollars from a lawsuit from a relatively small group of families, then I wouldn’t rule out the possibility of it happening to Musk. (Even if it is still tiny)
Well, no, you’re funding the foundation itself, but to have the foundation let you pick to solely fund Firefox would require additional management and technical changes to actually make the accounting work the way it’s intended to, that probably just isn’t worth their time, given the small donor base.
I’m sure if more people donated, they could actually be incentivized to make such an option available, but they barely get any donations compared to the revenue they make from the Google subsidy, so it’s just unreasonable to expect them to put in that additional effort, especially when the primary thing the vast majority of the money goes to is Firefox staff, development, and related server hosting anyways.
They do already ask their users for money.
Not to mention that the data they did actually provide was very minimal. They didn’t have to compromise any of their existing services to provide it.
There wasn’t exactly anything Proton could have done from a technical standpoint to prevent themselves from knowing what they did, without making the service itself nonfunctional.
Seconded.
For anyone considering switching though, make sure:
I will say though, I found less sites throttled/blocked me on Mullvad in some cases, since Mullvad’s IPs are less widely shared than Proton’s, so that’s a plus, but a few sites will have hard blocks on some VPN providers like Mullvad that they’ve made manual exclusions to for larger VPNs like Proton.
Who could have guessed a significant portion of the population wouldn’t magically find their attraction to people exclusively split along a very specific line of biological and social characteristics in over 99% of cases? What a shocking revelation that maybe a lot of people just like who they like regardless of gender or sex.
Personally, I expect to see this number of people outwardly identifying as bi significantly rise as time goes on.
Quick everyone, start talking about high speed rail!
Maybe we have the slightest shot of actually building out, y’know, cheap, fast, effective mass transit for once?
Buy overpriced ugly truck from an outward Nazi
Cover it in shiny gold wrap to draw even more attention and be obnoxious to anyone who doesn’t want to be blinded on the road
Be surprised when people don’t like you
???
Other nations that did away with smaller denominations simply round to the nearest denomination of the smallest unit they have available (e.g. $0.05), so $0.96 would come out to $0.95. When using card, prices stay the same, since digital money is easily divisible into smaller amounts without needing to worry about issuance.
There’s also the collective cost argument, which essentially means that since this cost to produce currency is a direct inflationary impact on the money we all hold, and is an expense by the government, which represents the populace, then if a penny costs $0.03 to make, if it takes you more than, say, 10 seconds to get pennies out to pay with them, your hourly wage is actually higher than the time you wasted just fiddling around with that penny.
Can we make a penny for less?
Probably, but what’s the point even keeping the penny around if it’s fundamentally useless to most transactions? Nobody can buy any individual item with a penny anymore, nobody pays for any items with a combination of just pennies since they’re still too tiny to easily amount to a value that’s worth your time to count (e.g. counting 25 pennies to buy a lollipop is extraordinarily tedious compared to just pulling out a single quarter, or two dimes and a nickle), and their primary purpose at this point is just to account for businesses pricing their goods at one penny under the nearest dollar amount to trick your brain into thinking it’s cheaper. It’s a fundamentally hostile currency to store, use, and receive change in.
If a penny gets used 4 times it covers its cost.
It does not, because each use does not generate $0.01 in revenue for the government. Let’s say it costs $0.05 to make a penny. Every 20 pennies produced collectively costs everybody $1. It doesn’t matter how many times that penny is used, because it still costs 5x more to produce than it will provide back to the government, as a result of its existence. Even if it’s used 5 times, will the government get $0.05 as a result of that? Of course not.
Let’s say each penny costs $1,000 to make. Making 1,000,000 pennies would cost a billion dollars. That means to produce $10,000 in pennies, you’d devalue everybody’s money, collectively, by $1B. Obviously, pennies don’t cost this much, but at scale, I hope you can see that even the estimated $0.037/penny it costs adds up to significantly larger amounts, and those amounts do have a meaningful effect on the economy.
It’s a matter of inflation. If it costs more to produce the money, but you retain the same demand to use money, then you will cause inflation, because you will have to create more currency, to fund the creation of currency.
It’s not a matter of cost-per-use, it’s a matter of cost-vs-revenue.
I may be wrong on this, but I believe they don’t give you that option, and just ask to be connected to the internet before continuing setup. You can, however, do some shenanigans to open up command prompt, and after a little bit of typing in commands from the internet and restarting your machine, you can then skip the account login and just make a local account.
To be fair, honestly, I’d like to think that Fascists at least know that $0.03 > $0.01 is a bad trade.
By supporting they mean what? Calling the kid the name they want to be called by?
Yes.
(e) “Social transition” means the process of adopting a “gender identity” or “gender marker” that differs from a person’s sex. This process can include psychological or psychiatric counseling or treatment by a school counselor or other provider; modifying a person’s name (e.g., “Jane” to “James”) or pronouns (e.g., “him” to “her”); calling a child “nonbinary”; use of intimate facilities and accommodations such as bathrooms or locker rooms specifically designated for persons of the opposite sex; and participating in school athletic competitions or other extracurricular activities specifically designated for persons of the opposite sex. “Social transition” does not include chemical or surgical mutilation.
They literally do this on a schedule every year, this isn’t any different than what they did last year, or the year before that, when there wasn’t any of this conflict.
They’re refusing to encourage the venue to underpay the person while using tips to make up for it. In practice, it’s not the same thing.
The immediate direct implication is, yes, not giving that person money, but if people as a whole continue to engage in that behavior, companies can go ahead and tell their workers “sure we aren’t paying you a living wage directly, but everyone will tip you enough to make up the difference” and that will allow them to keep more of the sale proceeds for themselves as profit, rather than paying it to the worker.
However, the more people refuse to tip, the less and less the employer can use the excuse that “they’ll make up for the difference with tips,” and will then be forced to pay the employee directly without making their income dependent on guilt-tripping people for extra cash, because otherwise, that employee will simply quit because they’re not getting paid enough, and no new employee will fill that position if it’s clear there aren’t enough tips to cover the difference between their actual wage, and a livable one.
The only reason tips as a concept exist is to allow employers to pay people less, then promise other people’s generosity will bring that pay up to par. If it’s too expensive for the business to offer fair wages with their current prices, then they should just incorporate tips into the price if it’s going to be necessary for their workers to receive tips anyways. If the business is making more than enough, and is simply using tips to subsidize what they would otherwise pay their workers, then a lack of tips necessitates them slightly cutting into their margins and paying their workers fairly.
The inherent act of not tipping in itself is denying the employee a payment in the moment, but the goal of such an action is to discourage the behavior by the corporation, to then make it necessary for that corporation to pay a living wage directly, which is objectively good for all parties involved (workers know how much they’ll make and get stable, livable wages, and customers know what they’re paying without feeling bad if they can’t afford making their $12 water $15.)
The longer you allow a system like this to exist, the more you’ll see what’s already happening, companies pushing it in where it traditionally was never present, minimum suggested amounts going up from 10% to 12% to 15% to 18% etc, and wages staying low as companies try using your generosity to subsidize wages they would otherwise have to pay themselves to retain workers. Not tipping is inherently a rejection of this system, and the only way you stop such a system from expanding is by rejecting it.
Most people going to concerts can’t exactly leave the building, find a different store selling water, buy it, then bring it back in through the concert venue. (Nor are they capable of magically knowing the prices inside beforehand) The reason the price was so high was likely because the venue knew they had a captive audience, and when people need water, they need water. If someone is just forced to pay $12 for water, asking them to subsidize your worker’s wages on top is a shitty move, and if nobody tips, then maybe that company will realize that they can’t subsidize the wages they pay with tips, and stop relying on them.
Then the attendant gets paid fairly from the get go, and they don’t need to be offended if someone doesn’t tip, because why the hell should anybody have to subsidize a corporation’s wages? If they want workers, charge what’s required in the price to pay those workers, no tip required.
There is no “harm reduction”
There most certainly is. If one side is worse than the other, voting for the one that does less harm reduces (but doesn’t eliminate or fix) the harm being done.
I’m not saying it’s a solution, it’s definitely a bandage on a bleeding wound, but a bandage is better than letting it bleed out.
can you imagine anything that would cause you to not vote for the democrats? If full throated support for genocide isn’t a bridge too far, I have to wonder if you have any absolute principles at all.
If the Democrats implemented policies that would cause greater overall harm than the Republicans, then I would vote the other direction, but that would imply a total switch in partisan policies. (for an example of some policies I support to give you a general idea of what I consider to be harm, I’m a socialist, utilitarian, I believe all lives have equal value, I’m pro-abortion, anti-fascist, I hope you get the gist.)
Voting for the greater evil never gives you a beneficial edge. Voting for nobody when the greater evil benefits from that won’t give you a higher likelihood of implementing positive policy in the future.
I absolutely don’t support the Democrat’s endorsement of a genocide, but acting as if they’re the only ones doing it is silly. Trump is very clearly even more genocidal, and would not only implement even worse policy with regard to the Palestinian people, but would also do numerous other genocidal acts here, and in other locations abroad.
Statistically speaking, the only thing that would give the genocide a higher likelihood of ending, when the only two possibilities in this election are Democrats or Republicans, is the Democrats, because they will likely do the least amount of genocide by comparison. If we want any hope of actually stopping the genocide, we first want the most sympathetic party to that idea in power.
But of course, if you don’t believe harm reduction as a concept even exists, then I wouldn’t expect this argument to convince you. It’s fine if you aren’t though. You’re absolutely entitled to your own opinion, however wrong I may think it to be.
Then I suppose you simply must reject the world we live in right now.
Both sides are going to continue the genocide, we know that, it’s their stated positions. The most we can do with our votes in the current election is take a stance of harm reduction, since that’s the only choice available. Anything else won’t make a change to the system of oppression facing the Palestinians today.
But will they, that’s the question.
They have the ability to, but if they won’t, then we still end up with the same two choices. And if picking the other side won’t make them change their mind, then whatever they can do is irrelevant in a conversation about what will produce the best tangible outcome.
Surely the Democrats will stop moving to the center now that they understand that they weren’t properly addressing the needs of the people… right? right?