131–140 of 245 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"degenerate activism" -- really? You could have just stopped with the other two.
It's odd to see people unselfconsciously use the term "degenerate" these days. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_art
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Usually the provider of a system or a standard also provides the documentation. Should my employer also pay to keep MSDN c# docs up to date? Or should that be the task of microsoft employees?
Microsoft gates plenty of training content behind Visual Studio subscriptions. Also, who is the "provider" of the web platform?
https://visualstudio.microsoft.com/vs/benefits/#training?cat... - you can see that the learning materials you get for subscribing all come from third-party partners, from whom you could buy the same things separately.
>Are you willing to pay 50-100 euros/dollars per year to keep MDN afloat? Yes, as long as there is a guarantee that my money will go towards actually paying people who update the documentation rather than CEO salary, degenerate activism or doomed web startups. >Create an independent entity like Fronteers, but then international, get members to pay 50-100 euros/dollars per year, and use that money to fund MDN or its s…
That breaks the site guidelines against flamebait calling names in arguments. Casual bomb-throwing leads to flamewars, and you started numerous flames with just that one word. We're trying to avoid that here, so please don't.
You don't need that to make your point, so please stick to the rules.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'd donate to a cause if my money doesn't go towards political alignments of any kind. That's... well, naive, I guess? Every single NGO picks an issue, and that issue has a political angle to it. Not only do I think it's unreasonable to expect an NGO to be apolitical, I think it's flat out impossible. I would ask you: Do you really want NGOs to be apolitical? Or do you want them to share your political alignment, a…
There are NGOs that don't take public stances, you just have to look out for them (depends on your country as well I guess?). It's fine if you want to accept everyone is corrupt and will have hidden causes ("that's naive") but I don't and other people share this. >Or do you want them to share your political alignment, and in that way be non-controversial? Please stop these kind of assumptions - it just feels childish…
It was a genuine question, not an assumption. I was just challenging the way you were positioning your opinion. I thought my comment was phrased in a way that was polite and direct. I don't see how that warranted an insult.
I won't address the rest of your comment as I think bccdee did a fine job of saying what I would've said.
Says the man that forced its students to buy his book, if you didn't he would fail your class while not using the book at all in class
>Are you willing to pay 50-100 euros/dollars per year to keep MDN afloat? Yes, as long as there is a guarantee that my money will go towards actually paying people who update the documentation rather than CEO salary, degenerate activism or doomed web startups. >Create an independent entity like Fronteers, but then international, get members to pay 50-100 euros/dollars per year, and use that money to fund MDN or its s…
> Yes, as long as there is a guarantee that my money will go towards actually paying people who update the documentation rather than CEO salary, degenerate activism or doomed web startups. Interestingly, this same sentiment is a huge part of why charitable giving runs into problems. A lot of people are willing to give, so long as they get to decide what is done with their funds. Of course, these same people have no i…
For instance, we might recall people donating money to the Red Cross to aid Haiti after the earthquake that country suffered in 2010. We later found out that maybe 75% of the funds donated actually made it to the country.[0] The argument can certainly be made that some of the donated funds should go towards the overhead of the organization but it seems reasonable for people to be upset when a full quarter of those funds somehow gets lost along the way.
People are asking charities to be more accountable because such accountability is direly needed. When large charities break trust with the public, as in the case of the Red Cross (and many others, perhaps Mozilla, even), this is what happens. Laying the blame on those still willing to hand money over for the good of all strikes me as misguided.
[0]: https://www.npr.org/2016/06/16/482020436/senators-report-fin...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's odd to see people unselfconsciously use the term "degenerate" these days. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_art
This was a dogwhistle, not unselfconscious use of a loaded term.
Wikipedia and StackOverflow have proved that technical writing can be done by community and crowd sourced effectively with active moderation.
This model has and can work, even independent sites like caniuse.com have been able to good quality content and are used widely.