This is what you get if you hire professors who assign writing exercises but are incapable of writing basic coherent emails with punctuation, and are unable to read the very plain text below a ChatGPT response that it may not be accurate.
And the perpetual tale of the forum post that says "this has been asked before, use the search" and the first search result is this person saying to use search
They carefully flood their tweets with likes from bot farms and once there’s a lot of inorganic activity it leads to a ton of visibility and therefore further organic activity
You should do what everyone else does. Buy the same monitor on Amazon and return your broken one to Amazon. Mostly joking but I wouldn’t fault anyone they did bc Amazon is awful
It just astonishes me that in the year 2023 I got caught out on the old "well the specs look good" scam. I know Dell makes a lot of dreck, and have been thoroughly unimpressed with the kit that our office bought in bulk.
On paper this should have been a great monitor - 27", 4K, USB-C data & power, nice height/tilt/rotation adjustable stand, multiple inputs, USB hub integrated, etc.
Probably worst tech purchase of the decade for me.
I had a really bad dell monitor experience this year too. I had a still image on the monitor for 30 minutes and it caused extreme permanent burn in. Returned it and got the cheapest no name monitor with the same specs and it’s been great and half the price
> Any church run as a business should not be considered a church at all.
Virtually every nonprofit is run nearly the same way as a regular business. They still make profits, the only differences are restrictions around distributing income to owners and some mild accountability in how funds are spent.
There's often a crucial difference in the nature of "revenue": With nonprofits it's often a voluntary contribution ("donation"). Or non profits can rightly claim that the contribution is of a capital nature in which case it's equivalent to an equity raise for a business (share issue even though the shares will never pay dividends).
Donations and equity raises are not taxable income.
Many large non-profits actually make most of their money as returns from investments. The Mormon church is not at all unusual in this way - most large universities also make most of their money from investments. As an example, when I reviewed the Universty of Texas finances in 2019 I think it was, they could have charged zero tuition for every student across every campus and still would have had a positive net income for the year. Massive endowments are useful for this exact purpose - allowing operations even without any outside contributions.
You're probably thinking of one type of nonprofit but there are several. The church in this case is operate for any more like a non-profit Hospital or business. You can run Starbucks or Apple as a non-profit. As long as you don't return profit to the individual owners and keep it in the business, you can qualify
The Guardian newspaper in the UK is owned by a non-profit (Scott Trust). Its founder was concerned that his family would lose control of the newspaper after his death, being forced to sell a large chunk of it in order to pay estate taxes. So he set up a trust, more recently converted to a not-for-profit company, to control it. The company’s constitution says it cannot pay dividends, that its stock has no voting rights and cannot be transferred without the board’s consent, and that it cannot be acquired by any for-profit entity. The board is self-perpetuating, appointing its own future members. I believe the board members are issued stock upon joining the board, but are legally required to return it upon leaving. The actual media business is run by a 100% owned for-profit subsidiary. There’s no reason in principle why a business in any other industry could not adopt the same ownership model, although it does make it harder to raise capital.
> There’s no reason in principle why a business in any other industry could not adopt the same ownership model, although it does make it harder to raise capital.
Yes, it would make attracting capital harder. It would also make it implausible to ever consider leaving that business and doing something else if you're one of the owners.
It’s not. NPR gets its revenues from member stations that buy the rights to the content.
It takes some government grants to support certain reporting and special projects but it doesn’t, directly, need government support for operations.
It’s member stations may take more government funding (I’ve seen numbers up to 10% but much of that is usually state funding not federal) - which it then uses to buy programming from NPR but that’s an arms length transaction.
By far the vast amount of public radio funds come from donations. You could remove all government funding and it would only really affect smaller, rural stations - the ones that mostly need governmental support.
A lot of people want to accuse NPR of having a liberal bias because of its governmental funding. Bias is hard to argue objectivelybut if you want to make the case that NPR is biased based on funding it would be more apt to say that it’s because most of their funding likely comes directly from its liberal leaning listeners.
PBS which is a similar organization for TV takes a slightly higher amount of government funding but that’s a similar setup.
... this is literally just a condensed version of the comment you just replied to, which happens to go into greater detail than your link, and does a far better job of explaining it from a nuanced perspective. I'm sure that that broad description you linked to helps you feel that it supports your argument, but once you dig down into that nuance, it really doesn't.
So if I work for Walmart and donate to planned parenthood does that mean that Walmart supports planned parenthood?
I don’t really understand the point you’re trying to make here? Is it that NPR is biased because it takes some marginal amount of governmental funding? Is it “state-sponsored media”? Or are you just arguing the numbers?
Literally on your own link and in the same sentence:
"Presently, NPR receives funding for less than 1% of its budget directly from the federal government, but receives almost 10% of its budget from federal, state, and local governments indirectly."
Laws don’t determine rights. You’re infringing on copyright, not stealing something. And we all know IP laws are horrendously broken. And I’d argue that your rights from an ethical perspective are extremely broad and you can basically do whatever you want with intellectual property as long as you’re not harming the actual creators (not owners).
First, I'm not "taking". I'm copying. And the person providing a copy is 'giving'. And nowhere is anyone deprived of any physical thing, save an ethereal possibility of buying this game. Then again, I have no switch and no intent to buy one. In this case, it was curiosity.
And frankly, I don't feel one bit bad, copying AND providing copies free of charge. I've paid enough to content, media, and game companies, and screwed over on rentals that were sold as sales.
I believe even in airplane mode it’s been shown that your phone will still send general location data back to your carrier once back online but I don’t recall specifics
How would it collect any location data in airplane mode: WiFi, Bluetooth, GPS, and related, should all be turned off. NFC too I presume. I doubt readings from vibration (step counting), barometer, compass, if your device takes such readings, are going to be useful enough on their own to provide a good location fix.
Maybe if you take a photo of something recognisable they could log your location at that point if the photo is automatically tagged when you connect later. Though even if that is the case, I expect the OP wasn't taking pictures of any landmarks during a journey to/from the abortion clinic.
I believe the premise is that airplane mode disconnects the OS from the modem, but it doesn't necessarily turn the modem itself off. It's still hitting cell towers and phoning back to Qualcomm. If Qualcomm has this information, three letter agencies have this information.
Accelerometer and gyroscope are enough to do a pretty decent mapping of indoor locations without GPS and the like. Its all differential, so the longer it goes without a point of reference the lower the confidence is, but its possible.
