Here you go! Insert credit card here.

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.

Unfortunately, rat park is in no sense good or useful science. It's more useful as a litmus test for how sincerely someone tests their beliefs.

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.

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.

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".

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.

The drivers were then exploited ruthlessly by medallion-owners.

Uber became very popular very quickly because it addressed a number of those consumer pain points up front. You could know for sure if a car was going to come, have a quite good idea of how long it would be, and get a price in advance. Sure, your complaints would likely be ignored, but nothing new there.

For an instructive example, look up the seminal paper on the structure of DNA: https://www.mskcc.org/teaser/1953-nature-papers-watson-crick... Ask yourself how useful comments from someone who did not know what an X-ray is, never mind anything about organic chemistry, would be in improving the quality of research or quality of communication between experts in both fields.

The basic problem with email is that it assumed good-faith participation from the parties involved. It was assumed that only legitimate actors would have the resources to participate and they would always be well-behaved. This, it turns out, was flawed on several counts. For one, it assumed legitimacy could be assured. For another, it assumed legitimate users would be well-behaved and would never abuse services for gain. For a third, it assumed account takeovers or other impersonation attacks wouldn't happen.

Every de-centralized system that aspires to not have email's problems needs to take them seriously.

It should be concerning that email has re-centralized to deal with all the problems that come from federation and decentralization.

In a very real sense, public schools are already customer-owned cooperatives governed by a set of trustees elected by the customer-owners.

That said, once you have a school owned by the teachers it's no longer a public school. Public schools are funded by and governed by the public. A cooperative school owned by worker-owners is by definition not a public school.

That would turn $116 into $580 per year. Spread out, that would be approximately $22.30 per paycheck if biweekly, or $24.16 if twice a month. All before taxes, of course. Real life-changing money for hundreds of thousands of people, right?

The point here is not that spreading the money from the C-suite to the workers is in any way a bad idea. The point is that it doesn't go nearly as far as we might like to think. We might want to adjust our policy preferences and goals to reflect reality instead of dreaming of us all dining endlessly on the the fat of the C-suite.

Oh, and here's a reference for C-suite comp at JP Morgan Chase. Reliability unknown, but if accurate it means my assumption of a 5x multiplier is overly generous: https://www1.salary.com/JPMORGAN-CHASE-and-CO-Executive-Sala...

The author is essentially arguing at length for a greater emphasis on benefit and less on cost. Not just in o-chem, but at every stage of medical training.

On the one hand, the author is on to something. Most people learn much better with intensive, one-to-one instruction than with large lectures. The real issue, as with all educational programs, is the cost in time and money to teach. More personalized, intensive training from more specialists in teaching a specialized subject simply costs more to get the to the same goals as bulk lectures. Nobody wants to say "There was a very rational cost-benefit analysis and I lost out". Instead, it's all framed as a need to dedicate more time and money at an already demonstrably drawn-out and expensive process.

On the other hand, a person's ability and willingness to show up at 7:30am are probably irrelevant. No matter how relevant it feels to a person who wants to show their dedication, passion, and drive.