But you're literally using one now, with a forced arbitration agreement that you agreed to, is hackers new commenting literally more important to you than the other services you skip due to arbitration?
You started this thread with "I don't agree to forced arbitration", and we're discussing that you clearly have done so, for something as trivial as commenting.
The whole point is that it's not a matter of you not wanting to sue them now because you "don't pay them anything". What happens if HN/ycombinator does something? Say they offer a service to recommend hire/non-hire for companies based on your comment history, and they for arbitrary/capricious reasons always say "do not hire" (maybe your comment about not agreeing to arbitration agreements), maybe they use "AI" and their service reports you as a "republican democrat homophobic christian anti-christmas woke ..." (e.g. all the keywords that would be needed to ensure that at least one of them would trigger an auto rejection from any company).
The fact that you agreed to arbitration, means you can't sue them in a fair court, and you can't use a class action with all the other victims (class actions exist because the "winning" from a single lawsuit like this is generally low enough to render it infeasible, that's the entire reason for arbitration and anti-class action terms).
The fact the you agreed in the context of commenting on a free service is not relevant at that point.
This is like the Disney "you agreed to arbitration for Disney streaming so you can't sue us for food allergy in a restaurant" (to be fair, as far as I can make out Disney was not responsible in that case, but using the Disney tv arbitration term was clearly bad PR but if they _were_ responsible would be just applicable and just as BS)
THESE TERMS OF USE CONTAIN AN ARBITRATION AGREEMENT, WHICH WILL, WITH LIMITED EXCEPTION, REQUIRE YOU TO SUBMIT CLAIMS YOU HAVE AGAINST US TO BINDING AND FINAL ARBITRATION.
This is an extremely myopic take. I don't think I have seen many -- let alone "most" as you prescribe -- comments in any forums that resort to "war bad". Even on HN what I've seen is people with a strong sense of justice and ethics actively speaking out against atrocities being committed using US taxpayer dollars.
As for your line about people not knowing the history -- partially fair enough. Though that's also a propaganda line spread by Israel to keep people out of the metaphoric town hall. If you really believe that to join a movement you must first learn the entire history of all concerned parties first, shouldn't the same apply to any comments about Israel, or the US? I don't see pro-genocide commenters being told to shut up because they don't know the completely history of the Ottoman Empire.
Exactly this. I use SN but I'm always looking for an alternative.
The mobile apps are very buggy and while the team tries to resolve issues, basic things should not be breaking occasionally. I want a notes app to just work.
18 months runway is included all expenses including wages, awards (that Mozilla gives out, for example to political initiatives), travel, social events and so on.
If we only looked at costs related to hosting the website they have almost 100 years. They got total assets of 191 millions, and the website hosting costs are 2.4 millions each year. 55 millions each year goes to wages (up from 46 millions previous year).
That's the cost of hosting, not the cost of operations. A business the size of Wikipedia doesn't run itself, and being a nonprofit doesn't magically make operations disappear.
There is no upper bound on how much profit they can take out as wages, and there is no lower bound either. They don't need to match wages with oil companies.
Charities have a common guideline that a maximum of 25% of donations is allowed to go to operations of the charity and minimum of 75% must go to the purpose of the charity. That mean if you donate to cancer research, 75% should go to cancer research and a maximum 25% to operational costs of the charity. I personally find 25% to still be too high.
You've confused some words and missed the forest for the trees. It's recommended they spend 65% on program activities for certain third party charity ratings, for which Wikimedia Foundation passes.
Resulting to insults doesn't makes conversations more interesting nor do they convince anyone.
When Wikipedia is asking for donations to keep the servers running then people expect more than 2% of the donations will go to that purpose. If they asked for donations to operate and pay wages to the foundation then they a perfectly free to do so and people wouldn't call them out as much when 49% is taken out as wages.
Based on what the parent said only 3% of that $77m is to run the site. The rest is spent on frivolous things I imagine if that's all it takes and they're still soliciting donations.
$153m dollars in donations spent on $67m in salaries, $10m in grants (surprisingly low, in 2020 it was $20m), $2m in hosting and like $10-20m in other professional expenses.
What have I said that is wrong?
Nothing in the rates of people dying or falling ill other than the elderly and those with comorbs indicates there is a dangerous pandemic going on.
Why not? It sounds like you are saying the carbon released by cutting/burning one mature tree is more than that captured by the planting and eventual growth of one tree. It seems non-sensical on the surface, but maybe I'm missing something. Maybe you're arguing that the carbon release is instantaneous but the carbon capture takes decades?
From an atmospheric CO2 standpoint, perhaps all trees (of a given carbon mass) are equivalent. But the monocultures that we plant are a pathetic, precarious substitute for natural habitat.
