Oh shit! That’s so fucked up.

I feel this is really this issue. In my own experience working in tech, I they HB1 staff does very well. And I know of a few that left to take jobs with other companies (who presumably also sponsored them) after 1-2 years, so the competition for fair pay was still there. They were also entirely men. I feel like it’s a way to make sure they get the people who don’t ask for too much, in terms of protection from labor practices and sexual harassment. With Amazon’s model being a complete PR and legal disaster currently. it seems to make sense.

All the way since the first company arrived here—the Virginia Company, that is. A handful of OG tech bros who found themselves a land of unrestricted resources and no boss around. They just needed some customers. And thus began immigration.

Scrapping the whole system would force us to finally fix our education system and stop intentionally raising unskilled people who leave college with $100k of debt and are still unqualified for a job.

Almost all of the HB-1 sponsors in my workplace are making 100k+. That may be lower than the average pay for that position in some cases, but it’s definitely not starving anyone.

Amazing!

Yep. Just like for-profit companies, having a diverse range of revenue streams is necessary for securing the financial health of the organization. While Wikipedia receives significant donations from companies like Google and Microsoft, it is essential to also solicit contributions from individuals to ensure that their income is not overly reliant on a single source. Just like in for-profits, Wikimedia likely determines the percentages of income from various sources needed to maintain this diversity. This concept seems particularly important for Wikipedia given its mission to provide unbiased information.

On another note, I’ve seen your same “100 years” notion mentioned a few times on this post. I can’t imagine that everyone who’s saying it independently had the idea to analyze their financial statements and calculate projections over 100 years. Is this an article you’re quoting? Just curious.

I thoroughly enjoyed this article. It was full of cited information and even the sources led to interesting reads.

That’s a great one 😇. I picture her wreath a little differently now.

Apparently that particular round of slander was not as successful as this one.

That is good advice, thank you! Is there a particular brand you’d recommend (DM me if you don’t want to share publicly). I was looking into a few major retailer flip phones but they both required the retailer to scan it for activation and I wasn’t entirely sure what that does tracking-wise, so I stopped to do some more research.

If you’re asking that question because you’re genuinely conflicted about donating and you’re not just here spreading divisive nonsense on behalf of Elon Musk, you could do a deeper delve into the entire foundation or look up the Wikipedia page on Income Statements.

You seem to be hung up on the operating expenses. That’s just a finance term for certain operational costs like the electricity bill and insurance. It does not mean the total of what it costs to run the organization and that everything else is in excess. Similarly, salary expenses includes everyone from the HR department to the custodians, not just the rich CEOs.

The entire 485 word intro to his Wikipedia page is unsourced:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk

The politically elite are so used to puppeteering public sentiment with ease, and so confident in their efforts to suppress education in America that they have stopped trying to be sneaky. All American ‘news’ is propaganda and the this is a blatant attempt to divide the public on one of the last free resources for factual information**. Free as in non-criminalized. These types of posts by EM are to incite division in order to amp-up for the criminalization of information. And it’s not very difficult to see.

**factual when readers uphold its integrity through critical consumption and editing.

Love that everyone on this thread is a financial analyst and a 501c consultant.

For-profit companies have the margins they do because they’ve successfully detached humanity from their spending obligations. Wikipedia does not need to do quarterly global lay-offs or labor off-shoring when their technology doesn’t meet release deadlines. They are a nonprofit. They exist to bring factual, accessible information to the world. If you support for this cause, donate. If you don’t, don’t donate or don’t use. If you care for the cause but want the CEO to take a paycut, well, find them one who will stick around for more than a few years on less than the average mega CEO salary. Because most of them have not.

Pathos is a simple marketing mode that is one of three used by every company and I don’t really see a problem with it. It’s intentionally contrary to the one for-profit companies use to gain revenue—fear.

Right. Criminal sophistication is the tracking portal on your device, analyzing all of your information and the information of your contacts and turning into a robust identity infrastructure, from which B2B data buyers can can select a complete data profile which will allow them to make decisions about your banking costs, your employment eligibility, your healthcare options, and the quality of information you are able to access via the web. All while appearing as a cute step-counting app that gives lights up with a smiley face haptic when you reach your goal.

That’s legal fees meaning court filing and other fees (seems low). You also have professional legal services, which includes specialized lawyers, in-house attorneys, and the General Council, which consists of board-level executives with legal credentials.

deleted by creator

This is the answer I was looking for! Thank you!