Well, for all those hundreds of millions it will indeed be existential (and I have read that a 4C Earth could only be able to host ~1 billion people, so the deaths could be a lot more than "millions to hundreds of millions".) In any case, arguing about the technicalities of the word "existential" at this point denotes such a complete lack of empathy that it's not even worth it.
If by "existential threat" you mean a threat to existence, there are already many species going extinct today, which is why it is said we are in a 6th mass extinction:
Droughts and floods are also affecting many parts of the world today. And "At 2°C of global warming, heat extremes would more often reach critical tolerance thresholds for agriculture and health, the report shows:" (IPCC)
Beyond 2C and nearing 4C, the extreme events are expected to yield larger crop failures and migration events.
The US military has also called climate change "a serious threat", stating "while extreme weather events and rising sea levels threaten infrastructure and economic output, trigger large-scale population displacement, migration and exacerbate food and water insecurity."
So it does seem fairly existential to me. How exactly is this being nuanced? I have also only linked respectable sources above.
All of that being said, I also share the opinion from others above that a single corporation unilaterally deciding what is or not acceptable speech should be unacceptable.
Right. For most people that are on a payroll and maybe have a 401k and what not, tax preparation should be easily automated. In some EU countries, the government will send you a draft that you basically just have to sign and send back. For the remaining 20% (likely even less than 10%) of people with more exotic investments, it is probably safe to assume that they either have the knowledge to handle the edge cases themselves or the wealth to pay someone to do it for them.
It should also be noted that the IRS already has all of the information about you anyway. Your bank, your brokers, etc all send copies of your financials to them. At that point, filling in a tax return by hand is basically a potential form of punishment for not doing your homework right.
I can only assume you're being sarcastic, but this kind of attitude only benefits these corporations. It is a common tactic by the rich oligarchies to defund and delegitimize government institutions so that they are scorned by the population and eventually privatized -- a move that only benefits them in the end. I would suggest Noam Chomsky's "Requiem for the American Dream: The 10 Principles of Concentration of Wealth & Power."
The real problem here is that Intuit and other companies lobby millions to maintain their status quo. The right thing to do would be to put every single dollar spent on these corporations into a government program that develops this kind of software or even does the taxes for you (this already exists in many countries in the EU.) Instead, in the US, you pay for Turbotax, they make a profit out if it, and then they use part of the money to lobby and keep the tax code and system rigged for their own benefit. I don't know if open source software is the solution here -- and as far as I know, the tax forms change every year, so it will be forever playing catch-up -- but it seems to be missing the point entirely.
Youtube forcing a subscription on everybody would be self-sabotage. Their existence and ability to make profits rests entirely on ads. And while the ads could be more ethical, they choose instead to track people in every possible way, exploiting their identity and fingerprint on the platform -- and outside the platform -- for maximum profit. So the ads are not a choice, but the soul of the product. Peertube, instead, does not exist to make profits.
Two of us at school kind of earned the "hacker" badge. Far from being expelled, the teachers expressed admiration for our work and ability to dig into a completely unrelated area to schoolwork.
We never did anything stupid or caused damage. I think the relationship was somewhat based on an implicit statement of mutual trust.
One could argue that the mere existence of a concept or an idea in someone's mind makes it real, especially so if that concept or idea has real, observable side effects for others in the "real" world. Heck, isn't this why we read science fiction or play board games? They create a mental image, the image is real in our minds.
Why all the anger? I may read on different philosophies and religions that I do not fully or partially agree with, practice or believe in, yet I may find useful life lessons in each, or drive pleasure just from the act of reading. I do not regard any of them as "bullshit" just because I do not understand or share their opinions.
Well, it was their religion that was in large part used to wipe out every pagan religion and culture that existed prior to it -- and then some more -- and submit the heathens to the true god. So, obviously, this must be the one :)
Guys are digressing from the relevant part of your comment. It looks very much obvious to me that academics should state where their funding comes from, just like non-profits have to do.
I imagine this has gotten worse with covid, people ordering food for take-away or shopping online. For what it's worth, I tried the idea of ordering from the restaurant online but then bringing my own (re-usable, washable) tupperware to pick up the food, and it certainly worked out. If you ask, you often get what you want. If the place is not willing to help you reduce your plastic footprint, then maybe it's one place to skip.