The problem with those call centers isn’t competency but authority and incentive to act autonomously to solve problems. Which is ironic because it looks like Microsoft is ready to sell ai with the authority to act autonomously.

I’d say it was 2000 when Gore’s election win was stolen from him.

I don’t feel like I have a good sense of how valid the objections are.

I’d like to hear more about the specifics if the issues you ran into. I keep delaying my options to start using passkeys because it’s a lot to take in at once and the only services implementing them seem to be the most important ones that I really don’t want to experiment with my ability to acess them. I haven’t even been looking at the details of each service’s implementation.

Can you elaborate on what it means to use a security key as a password manager? I’m not sure if I understand what you mean.

Are you employed by this company?

In line with theoretical expectations, we have identified pricing as a particularly effective policy in those sectors dominated by profit-maximizing firms

It amazing how hard these companies fight against the things are the most effective (taxes).

Beehaw uses Open Collective Europe Foundation (OCEF) as a fiscal host.

OCEF charges an 8% Host Fee on Revenue

OCEF uses the Open Collective Platform for the various functions and services it provides (like payment processing and accounting tools)

The Open Collective Platform charges a 15% Revenue Share for Fiscal Hosts that collect donations through the platform.

Any tip given to the platform does not go to Beehaw at all.

All of the above is in addition to payment processing fees charged by Stripe.

It’s nice to see that others get it. Unfortunately, neither of us have any immediate influence on the largest social media platforms.

This is presented in a confusing way to me. But I see after reading it twice that monthly recurring contributions are $80.82 per month (I’m assuming this is after fees that OCEF charges).

You have set a rough target of increasing that monthly recurring contributions amount to about $185 so that one off contributions aren’t being relied upon to meet monthly expenses.

This seems like a very reasonable ask and very attainable.

I’m copying a monthly donation link here for people that don’t want to scroll back up:

https://opencollective.com/beehaw-collective/donate?interval=month

Back when Bitcoin was released, nobody was giving a thought to computer energy use.

It didn’t take long before people saw that energy was a major factor in cost of operations of the network.

It was a poor design decision

One that is fiercely defended by people who invested into the implementation. So it may not have started with it being anticipated, but not it is and people are actively choosing to perpetuate this use of energy.

Back when Bitcoin was released, nobody was giving a thought to computer energy use.

VT for long term
Money Market Funds for short term

Republican voters are never going to change their preference to a democratic candidate based on who the Democratic candidate is. The people who have potential to vote for Democrats aren’t undecided in who they prefer, they’re undecided if they even care enough to vote at all. Getting more people motivated to vote who didn’t vote in the prior election is the only way to gain votes. That’s true for any Democratic or Republican candidate for president. Presidential candidates need to make sure that people who voted in the last election for their party’s candidate don’t become disinterested in voting in the current election.

The tough on crime reputation Harris has may demotivate otherwise likely voters for a Democratic candidate.

This argument from authority really falls flat when looking at the proposals put forth. Perhaps these are not the best minds despite the efforts of the admissions department.

I’m skeptical of the idea that student protesters typically identify the optimal solution to the problems they identify.

They may be correct in identifying and calling attention to issues, but many of the solutions I’ve seen proposed by protesters at colleges seem at best tangential to addressing the issues.

If the only goal is to reduce emissions, your concerns of the production and use of more EVs should absolutely be taken into account. However, I don’t think that should be the only concern when thinking about the ethics of the proposed policy.

If that’s all one wants to consider when evaluating the ethics of the policy in question, then it seems like the “correct” policy.

You seem to have presented a non sequitur based argument.

I wasn’t making any positive claims. I was clarifying the terms of what one might consider “working”. And how we may want to consider how we value people without regard to geopolitical boarders.

You’re defining “work” as Chinese manufactured EVs having less market share. But if that means everyone that buys pays more for an EV and fewer EVs are sold, did it result in the most benefit for American citizens? What about the rest of the world’s population, in which situation is the net benefit greater?

Tarrifs are only a positive in cases where they are conditioned on labor, environmental, and other externalities being priced in and regional subsidies being countered. That seems like the case here.

But I suspect that the threat is being used as a negotiation tactic and China will call the bluff.