If the Mozilla foundation creates a donation button with the condition that the money goes solely to browser development (no CEO salary or political activism) I will donate.
Except that it's well-known fact that none of your donations for the foundation ever go anywhere near Firefox itself, since Firefox is spun off as their commercial sector to accept Google's money
You can even donate money today: https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/donate/
From memory, Mozilla's spent years trying to get donations through asking people nicely and in relatively unobtrusive ways in-browser for years. You can even give monthly - a subscription, if you will.
Not only have they tried both donations and subscriptions, but their efforts have been resoundingly ignored. To the point where you are far from the first person to fault them for supposedly choosing to not do what they demonstrably do.
Perhaps people suggest that donations and subscriptions don't work well or reliably because there's history showing that.
> At one point Mozilla was literally selling a VPN subscription. That point is now - you can go buy one today.
I don't want a VPN. And I don't want to pay money to a Mozilla VPN of which some unspecified percentage will actually get used to pay for Firefox development (with the rest actually paying for the VPN). I honestly feel my money does more harm than good paying for the VPN because it creates a false impression of where the demand is.
I don't want a subscription to an unrelated service, I want a subscription to Firefox. I want my money to go into a stream that unambiguously shows my support for the single Mozilla project that I care about.
> You can even donate money today
That money will not (and I believe cannot) go to Firefox. As presently structured the corporation does all Firefox development, and the corporation cannot receive money from the foundation, so donations to Mozilla do nothing for Firefox.
> Not only have they tried both donations and subscriptions, but their efforts have been resoundingly ignored.
Not ignored, for the reasons stated above they haven't actually done what you say they've done.
I suspect you will find that in many cases, people whose brains have been hijacked by chemical dependency may experience some difficulty in behaving as a stakeholder in society. It will often not stack up favorably against feeding that dependency, no matter how much they might favor it in the abstract.
This country has always had a segment of people in chemical dependent desperation since it was founded. The question is, why are we seeing a rise in metal theft? Its not because this population suddenly emerged, nor that they suddenly realized that metal has value as scrap. Its because the prices of metals has increased which creates incentive to fence metals. Theft in this sector is enabled through fences who take this stuff without asking questions.
It's not like selling a stolen bike and pretending it's not stolen. There's just not a lot of good reasons for someone to bring into a recycler an old brass plaque from a city monument or a hundred yards of wire from a bridge. Law enforcement knows this at least and is lenient on the thieves if they help pin the fence.
Individual capacity enables community resilience. If you have resources that can be shared, they can be shared with your neighbors.
Otherwise, we're either asking local government to invest in resilience or reinventing local government to ask this new body to invest in resilience. In either capacity, we are not investing in individual capacity, we're just trusting that the resources we need will be made available in time of need and sufficient to the needs of all.
That works to the extent that a polity is willing and able to seize, care for, and sell off parcels. At scale, this is not guaranteed to be as easy as it sounds. Case in point: Detroit.
I agree. There's no moral or ethical difference in any way.
Unfortunately for us, the law routinely does see a substantial difference and treats them as such. Due to that, the SCOTUS sees them as different and judges that a law on one is not automatically a law on the other.
In other words, to ban a thing you actually need to specifically ban a thing and not just something that feels ethically like the thing you want to ban.
This article readily conflates niceness and kindness. It would be very easy to read this and take away the understanding that critical feedback that leaves a person feeling in any way negative is not kindness.
There's a great deal of nuance to how kindness is defined. It's very easy for one set of actions to be either very kind or very unkind, depending on definitions.
Listening, being respectful, and being empathetic may drive one person to bite their tongue and silence feedback that someone is performing poorly out of fear of hurting them or the morale of the team. Another may be driven by the very same things into giving candid feedback.
This article does not do a good job of exploring the difference. It just asserts "Being nice is the new punk".
We're building this because the ability to make narrow, specific predictions can be narrowly and specifically useful. This works if you have a good understanding of both the tools and the domain you're looking to make predictions in.
Unfortunately, from an outsider perspective, this looks like being widely and generically useful. If you don't understand your tools, you're going to misuse them, and this hype cycle is the result.
Here you go! Insert credit card here.