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.

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.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eG2IPRr--nM

I think cats will be even more on the side of real food in the real food vs salad debacle, animal edition ™.

Like evasive chimpanzee said we need to poop INDIRECTLY in crops. Hot aerobic composting for example has excellent nutrient retention rates and eliminates nearly all human borne diseases. The main problem would be medication since some types tend to survive.

Also urine contains almost all of the water soluble nutrients that we expel and is sanitised with 6-12 months of anaerobic storage. So that’s potentially an easier solution if we can seclude the waste stream. Again the main issue would be medications.

I don’t have the answer, if it was easy we would have done it already. The main issue is we don’t have a lot of people working on the answer because we’re still in the stage of getting everyone in the world access to sanitation. Certainly the way we’re doing it is very energy and resources intensive, unsustainable in the living term, and incredibly damaging to the environment. We’ve broken a fundamental aspect of the nutrient cycle and we’re paying dearly for it.

The other problem is, like recycling, there isn’t a lot of money in the solution, so it’s hard to move forward in a capitalist system until shit really hits the fan.

1. We mine and manufacture nutrient dense fertilizer at massive environmental cost.
2. We use the nutrients to grow plants
3. We eat the nutrients in our food
4. We expel 95% of these nutrients in our waste
5. We dump our waste into the rivers and oceans with all the nutrients (often we purposefully destroy the nitrogen in the waste since it causes so much damage to rivers and oceans)
6. We need new nutrients to grow plants

Before humans there was a nutrient cycle. Now it’s just a pipe from mining to the ocean that passes through us. The ecological cost of this is immeasurable, but we don’t notice because fertilizer helps us feed starving people and waste management is important to avoid disease.

We need to close the loop again!

I chose NOT diddling kids!

I’m generalizing here, but men’s lib looks VERY different to women’s lib. Women started from a position of very low power, liberation was nearly a continuous improvement for all but the most privileged women.

Men’s lib requires first giving up a lot of patriarchal power before gaining the benefits of men’s lib, which in my opinion far surpass those of patriarchal power. There are a lot of barriers to this. First, most “online” feminists talk only about giving up patriarchal power. This feels hostile to most men and has bolstered misogynist influencers like tate et al. Second real life men and women are typically both complicit as men in enforcing patriarchal views of what a man is supposed to be. You can see experiences of men crying or expressing real emotion in front their prospective significant others as a prime example of this. Third there is no easy to access popular description of the benefits to men of men’s lib. There are great examples, but they aren’t as culturally relevant as patriarchal influencers yet.

The path to men’s lib is complex and has very different challenges than women’s lib. I think we’re getting there, but it’s certainly a slow process and at this time I think the counter reaction is more prevalent and popular.

Hating the rich is like hating murderers, it’s not a feeling you should hide in polite company like racism. Every minute of their breathing lives they choose to take more from society than they give back. That’s how these dragons of modern times create their unimaginable hoards. No knight in stories of old hid their desire to slay the foul beasts, because doing so is always virtuous and worthy of praise.

Oh my god, it’s even worse when you zoom out. We’ll never catch up to the trend lines set by the years of unsustainable growth before the recessions in the 70’s. Oh the permanent damage we caused. It’s an absolute tragedy that after a recession we never get back to the trend line that was set by the bubble before it burst. I’m not patient enough for the slow and steady fundamental growth of humanity through time, I want continuous fast exponential growth so the shareholders can he happy all the time!

If your extrapolate a line during the run up to ANY recession you’ll create a line that never gets hit again. Your extrapolation theory reminds me of this

Usually in North America bidet refers to a modified insert or toilet seat that includes a sprayer and a lever to control. It doesn’t take up any space at all. Definitely a stand alone bidet takes up a lot of space but they’re visually non existent in North America, although I certainly would prefer that to the sprayers.

It’s never throwing your ballot in the garbage though. I used to think the same way, but every vote on the left, even if for the lesser evil, even if they lose, moves the conversation to the left. When we all stay home you get maga nutjobs stealing the show running unchecked.

Last thing is that gerrymandered states are the EASIEST to upset by increasing voter turnout. To gerrymander effectively you have to put your opponent in dense areas they’ll win by a large margin, then spread your side so that you barely win the rest of the districts. That means that a 5% increase in votes on the left can take you from a loss to a nearly complete victory in a gerrymandered state.

Vote splitting on the other hand is a trickier beast, but in the end if all the left votes go to a moderate then that gives the left a lot of leverage because if the moderate candidate doesn’t bend to the left then they’ll lose the next election.

Always vote.

Housing can’t be an investment (i.e. exponential growth above inflation) AND an affordable place for people to live for future generations. This mentality is absolutely brain-dead.

Most crypto transactions are trivially identifiable these days. Most blockchain are an unencrypted public leger and most crypto retailers like coinbase require government ID.

You start off strong then move straight to supporting the fucking Taliban, as if that’s a reasonable position to take.

I agree, the article is likely highly sensationalized, but let’s be clear the Taliban are a piece of shit government with extremely regressive and repressive views. Maybe this shit doesn’t happen in Kabul, but Kabul seems bad enough that women can only show their faces and most are even too afraid to do that. That shows you that it’s a TERRIBLE place to start with even in the best places. Unfortunately many people don’t live in Kabul and it seems that the government isn’t going to do anything to stop regional authorities from abusing their power and any young woman they can get their hands on.

Don’t travel to Afghanistan. Every dollar that goes to Afghanistan supports religious oppression.

Lol the place that must not be named.

It’s a numbers game. Getting engagement and knowing your audience are skills. The fediverse is a small place compared to meta. Being a big player in the fediverse for most posters is like being in the best team in a college league. Meta joining with 500-2000x the users is like suddenly having to compete at a national professional level. Certainly a few players have the skill, but most will get benched in no time.

Maybe I’m wrong and I hope that I am, but I certainly know most default sub comments at the other place had no upvotes, no replies, and were at the bottom of the thread never to be seen. On here, nearly every comment i see or post has SOME engagement (like this discussion!). It’s a different game when you have hundreds of millions to billions of users.

You wouldn’t create a meta account. But I know I consume a lot more content than I create. Probably 1% of social media users create 80% of the content. If meta joined, the users that make most fediverse content now will see their engagement drop. There will likely not be a good reason for them to post at all since, in all likelihood, that content has already been posted by a meta user or reposted with more engagement.

Eventually they’ll stop posting because it won’t be fun. At this point almost all content will be meta content, and most activity pub clients will be “alternative meta clients” in practice. If/When meta leaves, the fediverse will likely have a fraction of the content it has now, it’ll be a ghost town and have a long and hard road to recovery.

That’s not to mention the other problems in the article.

When a big corporation like Walmart moves into a neighborhood it kills the small stores because it delivers most of what people want more effectively. Then when Walmart closes shops to consolidate those neighborhoods don’t go back to the way they were, they now have no stores.

There is a lot of content in the fediverse that wouldn’t exist with meta, because meta users would provide better content, more discussion, and more votes would mean more granularity so better content rises higher. That would stop a lot of the people who post content on activity pub. They would be too late and have too little engagement to be relevant. Those people don’t magically reappear if meta decides that activity pub was just a bad mistake.