Narrator: it was legal in state 1

I only counted 4x6 … because I can’t count :(

Best part is that if you include the free space in the center it actually has the exact number of boxes for a full bingo card.

It’s like trading a pawn for a piece, always a good deal in the broader scale.

I want someone who would choose to spend a million/year on the animals instead of on themselves.

That video is garbage, you REALLY think the “best and brightest” are the ones making millions? It’s the well connected. The people who make and break lives like chips on a poker table over a game of golf. The people who hang out on Epstein’s Island. They’re the only ones making millions per year.

The best and brightest are slaving away in universities and companies making meager salaries. The ones who have to fight for every cent that goes towards their innovation and research, who have to convince shareholders that every dollar they invest will give them a thousand back.

Let those people run the zoo, they’ll do it for 120k. That’s millions more that can be spent on the animals by people who actually have the skills to help.

Update Oh my god. I just watched more of the video and it’s baffling how bad it is. First he says that charities have to fill the gaps the market can’t fill because it’s not profitable. But his 5th pillar is that they should be allowed to pay profit to share holders to attract “capital”. But if they could turn a natural profit they wouldn’t need to be a charity. That means that profit necessarily has to come from DONORS. He’s literally advocating for a charity that takes donations and pays them to SHAREHOLDERS instead of the needy… Holy shit he’s in a room full of “smart” people and getting praised for this idea. I’m only half way through and I’m getting nauseous watching this.

Final update. His overall idea that overhead isn’t a good measure of charity success is a decent one. But NONE of the solutions he proposes are decent. What about compensation for charity workers? All he talks about is MBA salaries. And giving donations to shareholders is the most disgusting idea I’ve heard all year. That’s completely irredeemable.

What about high energy use industry running only during excess supply. Making aluminum, desalination, even training AI models. There are a lot of energy guzzlers that don’t NEED to run 24/7. Why can’t they be a sink for excess power?

What movie is this? Looks like a good time!

US government gutted manufacturing? Last I checked companies chasing endless profit did that. Then when the government tried to stop them they used their money and power to elect a government that let them outsource US jobs to China. They’ve been rolling in money ever since.

This is exactly what Disney is trying to do by throwing an ex employee under the bus.

If people’s lives depend on your systems, and your systems can be undermined by a single person and not caught for years, then you’re playing with people’s lives.

Secondly, even if this was the case, how could they possibly justify trying to get out of being accountable by saying she signed away her rights by using a free month of Disney+?

This is just Disney moving on to their next bullshit excuse to not pay after the first one didn’t work.

This is in comparison to private corporations who have a profit incentive to monetize your data in every disgusting abusive way possible. Companies with a fiduciary duty to exploit every possible potential for profit or they can be sued by shareholders? Companies that aren’t publicly auditable so you’ll never know who they’re sharing your data with? Like the recent trend of cars selling your location data to your insurance company who then uses it to hike your rates?

You’re comparing a government who has to be bribed or break a law in order to share your data at all with corporations who have a duty to sell it to the highest bidder. And in this comparison your conclusion is it’s the government that you can’t trust?

Sorry, I have to say I’m completely baffled by your statements right now.

That’s true, but the government is auditable by citizens though. We can legislate them to not keep logs and most importantly we can see if they’re sharing data with advertisers.

This is the right way to protect privacy. Auditable government departments have your data anyways. They don’t provide the data to companies, but they answer questions like “old enough to drink?” With yes no answers.

If your phone is in a Faraday bag how would you get phone calls?

You can sue for anything. I can sue you for trespassing in my home because your message is in it right now. Suing someone doesn’t mean you’re right or that you even have grounds to sue.

Sounds like you’re the one misunderstanding goodwill. Goodwill doesn’t donate to ANY causes. Their ONLY contribution is employing disabled people and providing jobs/training. You can read it on their own website.

Who does Goodwill help? Goodwill serves those with barriers to employment. This includes individuals with disabilities, people with limited work history, those who have experienced corporate downsizing and recipients of government support programs. Goodwill’s services are designed to meet the training and placement needs of the individual. https://www.goodwill.org/faqs/#d7

There well known for paying their disabled employees below minimum wage while paying local store CEOs hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.

So don’t tell me about how the high prices I pay will support charities.

This is a store where people GIVE away their stuff, out of the goodness of their hearts with the premise that it will be sold at a low price so that someone less fortunate can benefit. If goodwill has decided to sell the merchandise it gets for FREE at “fair market value” to the highest bidder in order to maximise profit then what’s the point of goodwill? Might as well use a consignment store and get a cut.

The exchange in “Goodwill” is that you’re donating in goodwill so your things can help others. That’s what goodwill MEANS.

I found dollarama products listed for $5+ at the local goodwill. Let’s not just make the blanket assumption that exploited goodwill workers are professional appraisers and that the customer is the problem.

If you already know the answer you can tell the AI the answer as part of the question and it’ll give you the right answer.

That’s what you sound like.

AI people are as annoying as the Musk crowd.

Yes, but what I think he’s saying is that so far the deceased birth rate coincides with drastically increased consumption per capita. Therefore the decrease in birthrate may have no to negative short and medium term effect on total consumption/pollution.

I think it’s desktop only, but I rarely use the mobile brave app.