There’s no oversight for any of these agencies and they have the means and incentive to backdoor cryptography, what would stop them from doing this morality? There’s no possible way that they both aren’t compromised and all we’re seeing now is them firing pot shots at each other trying to convince the reader to join their honeypot because its sweeter.
The game uses archive files to package the game files and if one file changes then that breaks all the mods, and since there are several key files it essentially breaks that entire category of mod. So they aren’t as crazy as they sound even if you are correct.
Bethesda games are the only games I’ve ever played that don’t support ultrawide. Don’t get me wrong I’ve played other games that were released without it or it was buggy but in each case I put in a bug report and within a week or a month they patched it. Bethesda must have so much technical debt and spaghetti code that they can’t do it and they don’t care enough about their players to even try.
Microsoft certainly tries it’s best to keep you locked into their ecosystem by making it inconvenient but not impossible to leave though that’s not the real reason, it’s security. Businesses and especially governments are scared of nation state hackers contributing malicious code to open source products and falsely assume it’s safer to use closed source software because those incidents aren’t public. There’s so much great software out there I’d love to use and the first question I’m asked when I bring it up is can you prove China hasn’t contributed code?
I don’t think paying bills is a flex he’d understand, in fact he probably thinks anyone that doesn’t cheat the system is a fool.
Just set this up last night, it’s very handy for working with pdf’s.
The hyper text markup language programming language?
I misread the 2023 earnings report where it stated fundraising was $4.4 million as revenue instead of an expense, so when you read it like I did originally it would mean they make 97% from dues and other means and 3% from fundraising (which is false). Which is why I tried to defend my position that there’s no value in taking that from the children and it’s just a cash grab.
Hi again Flying Squid, first I just wanted to apologize to you and admit I was wrong. I misread the 2023 earnings report where it stated fundraising was $4.4 million as revenue instead of an expense, so when you read it like I did originally it would mean they make 97% from dues and other means and 3% from fundraising (which is false). Which is why I tried to defend my position that there’s no value in taking that from the children and it’s just a cash grab. Second, no I was not trying to dictate what you meant, I was simply pointing out that the words can be used interchangeably after you cited my usage of the word unique when you said unusual.
Hi medgremlin, you are correct. I misread the 2023 earnings report where it stated fundraising was $4.4 million as revenue instead of an expense, so when you read it like I did originally it would mean they make 97% from dues and other means and 3% from fundraising (which is false). Which is why I tried to defend my position that there’s no value in taking that from the children and it’s just a cash grab.
Not a troll, I misread the 2023 earnings report where it states fundraising was $4.4 million as revenue instead of an expense, so when you read it like I did originally it would mean they make 97% from dues and other means and 3% from fundraising. Which is why I tried to defend my position that there’s no value in taking that from the children and it’s just a cash grab.
While I understand that the mistake is entirely my own and I apologize to you, perhaps in the future just point out the flaw in their argument instead of calling them a qanon conspiracy nutjob.
If you read the comment chain with OP you’ll see my argument present is that the “fundraiser” for the troop nets 22% while taking 78% of while only having 24% cost.
Please explain to me what value is provided for 54% of the revenue after having already paid the cost to get the cookies made and packaged and already having paid dues to access this program?
Because Merrian-Webster’s website is designed to take the boiled-down definition and show the synonyms for that, so you are looking at the synonyms for “uncommon”; If you type in unique as the search term you’ll see what I mean as it boils down the definitions into “personal, unusual, only, and uncommon” and shows the synonyms for those.
Unusual is quite literally a synonym for unique. If you are saying something is unusual and difficult to acquire that makes it unique by the very definition of the word.
Raising funds is correct, non-profits do need to offset their cost to stay solvent which is why the services you received are paid for by dues which is how the GSA remains solvent. That includes access to their resources for selling cookies as a fundraiser, you have already paid for this so the company has no need to charge you. Yet you’re paying them an additional 54% of your revenue even though you already prepaid for the cost of the fundraiser.
If you think the organization that is fairly funded through your dues to access the resources and services should be paid the majority of profit from your fundraiser instead of giving that money directly to the children it’s meant to fundraiser then good for you, I personally don’t think a fundraiser should be used to raise funds for an organization you’ve already fairly compensated.
We clearly have different opinions on the matter and that’s cool, but I’m not going to spend the rest of my day debating. It’s good to have met you Flying Squid and I wish you and your daughter the best.
Girl scout cookies are not some unique creation, they are specifically licensed and legally cannot be made by anyone else but they aren’t exclusive to girl scouts and can be purchased under their normal brand name if you know it from the official source like these coconut dreams I’ve got in my pantry.
“They cannot make a profit”, out of curisoity what would you call charging 54% on top of the 24% cost, non-profit profit?
The difference in my example scenarios were after costs were paid all remaining revenue goes to the troop to be used by the troop for the troop, that’s how a fundraiser should work. In the current business model you seem keen to defend you are giving away more than half of the revenue to the organization which already makes it’s money through dues.
There seems to be some confusion here so perhaps I didn’t make myself clear, everyone involved in getting the cookies into a box and ready to be sold by a troop are covered under what is known as the cost, we’ve already established the cost is 24%. What’s left over is the profit which would be 76% of the revenue.
I’m asserting the troop should keep the 76% profit. Currently we are giving the troop 22% and a parent organization 54%, maybe it’s used for good maybe it’s used to keep the parent organization pockets full who knows because neither you or I can make any claim as to where the money goes with any real certainty.
You are diminishing the work of the troop here, these girls are volunteering not just their time but also the parents and other family members involved and they should be the ones to benefit. “Oh no it was an easy job and they just had to sell to their relatives and it was hardly any effort!”, even from that perspective I still don’t understand why you think it’s acceptable to give away 54% of the revenue to someone who did nothing solely because it was minimal effort on their part.
Ignoring taxes and other fees for this example, if I wanted to do my own similar fundraiser and went to the grocery store and bought 100 boxes of cookies there for $1 a box and then the troop sold them for $4 a box $100 covers my losses leaving $300 for profit for the troop. Should I pay the grocery store an extra $216 because they facilitated my actions?
Your Samoa chart tells me that the cost to produce and drop ship these cookies is slightly less than a quarter of the sales price, yet the troop doing all of the work sees 22% revenue which is exploitation. A fundraiser should see all profits go to the troop that does all the work after expenses, not 22%.
It’s warms my heart to hear that the girl scouts don’t discriminate with their child exploitation to sell their cookies.
I recant my statement after having initially misunderstood the revenue and expenses regarding fundraising in relation to the value provided for the money taken from fundraising.
Her name is Krysten Ritter and she played Jane, Jesse’s girlfriend who overdoses in Breaking Bad.
How much the bribe is for, people would be very upset if they knew how cheap they got sold out for.