Not quite because they are correlated. As he says, embezzlers are smart. So lowering the second risk also lowers the first as a smart embezzler is not likely to try when the risk of getting caught is high.
You say he was fired for productivity, but you also say he was fired when his employers found out he was working for all 3. It seems to me that the real reason wasn't his productivity, because he would have been fired for that without waiting for his employers to find out about his multiple jobs.
Which is fine. It's just that the options they offer aren't good. You either take annoying ads or pay $14 per month. How much do they make showing me ads per month? Probably not $1. If they wanted to offer me premium for $20 per year I would gladly pay and it would be win-win. As it stands I will play cat and mouse with ad blockers and they will get $0 from me.
That makes sense, but really we are not going to be able to guarantee full accuracy of a timestamp against future changes in timezone boundaries. I guess if you had a GPS coordinate, that could be done, but it would be a monumental task for little benefit. Which is why IMO time data should be stored in unix, because then we can at least guarantee that we have an accurate ordering of events, at least within the precision of the timestamp.
Would rather convert to unix at the time the event is recorded since we will be able to convert to the unix standard from whatever locale. If we store timestamps with a locale then we have to worry about the exact type of locale changes that you mentioned, and there is no guarantee that we will even know how to translate the locale that was stored at the time the TS was created. Sure, unix could change too (e.g. leap seconds), but I would be much more confident that time libraries will handle such changes
Locale and time are two separate pieces of data. Why store them together? Why not unix time and locale as two separate data points, and then mapping them to a human readable value is a UI concern?
> Any idea how many projects besides Wikipedia are run by WMF
I use Wikipedia, not any of these other projects.
> Any idea how expensive it is to support and facilitate the big "Movement" discussions
I don't care about the "movement"
> and the User Code of Conduct discussions?
I don't care about this either, but how on Earth is that expensive?
You are asking me to donate to things I don't use, and don't care about, and are not necessary to the product that I use. If you allowed me to donate specifically to Wikipedia, I would (and I did until I realized I wasn't). Why don't you segregate funds between Wikipedia and the rest of WMF?
As for the spam level, I know that the reason that it has gone up is because you need more money to fund this stuff that I don't care about and could run Wikipedia on a small fraction of the donations you get. That's the issue. Not how "soft" the banner design is. You are using Wikipedia as a bait and switch fundraising operation for a lot of other stuff that, honestly, very few people know or care about or would donate to if it weren't for the Wikipedia focused fundraising.
I'm ok with paying too, and I did many times. Then I found out I wasn't actually paying for what I was getting (wikipedia) but actually only a small fraction of my donations were going there and the majority was a bait and switch.
Because people wouldn't donate. They want to donate to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a highly successful product. So much so that people will voluntarily pay 100x what it takes to run it. In a normal business this would be profit, and the owners would be able to pocket it.
But, Wikipedia is a non-profit, so they have to be a bit more clever in how they pocket the money. First you create a parasitic management structure. But if your administrative expenses are 80% of donations, that looks bad. So you donate to another non-profit, and that counts in financial statements as money put to work as charity. Then that non-profit can siphon off its share of administrative expenses, and repeat the cycle.
This is how most large non-profits work. They start out from building something genuinely successful, like Wikipedia, and from that visibility they raise more donations than they know how to spend. So naturally they want to expand their work. But it's very rare that the founders also happen to have the skills to run a large organization, so they need to bring in "professional management."
And who could be better than someone who has previously run a large non-profit? They are now run by some career non-profit manager, and the first thing they will do is focus on fundraising. They will pay large salaries to professional fundraisers who are, you guessed it, their friends from previous organizations they have worked at. Their jobs will be easy and their salaries fat. Then they will build an expensive administration structure whose salaries will eat up an ever increasing share of donation income.
The non-profit becomes essentially a feudal structure, with idealistic volunteers doing all of the productive work while highly paid managers consume all of the donation income. As long as fundraising investment has a positive ROI in terms of donations, management will find new ways to spend it. They will hire more and more parasitic administrators, and if things are particularly lucrative, they will donate to other organizations run by people they know in the industry. Always good to have someone else owe you a favor when times get tough.
This will continue until the organization grows so big that it collapses under the weight of its own structure. In the case of Wikipedia, some of the serf volunteers have figured this out and described it as "Wikipedia has Cancer" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_C...
> The first flight test of a full-flow staged-combustion engine occurred on 25 July 2019 when SpaceX flew their Raptor methalox FFSC engine at their South Texas Launch Site.[8]
(Yes, there are others listed, but SpaceX was first to actually fly something.)
We are compensating high office holders all wrong. We are paying them pennies on what they could make in the private sector for a similar position of power, and leaving them to make up the difference by extracting money from favors and prestige. It virtually guarantees corruption.
They should be paid an enormous salary plus an excellent pension for life, with the caveat that they are not allowed to accept income from any other source for the rest of their life. This would not be a lot of money. If we paid everyone in the house, senate, and cabinet $10M / y, that would cost < $5B per year, which is nothing to the government. You could make the pensions like $2M / year, and the total cost would probably come in at < $10B.