In line with theoretical expectations, we have identified pricing as a particularly effective policy in those sectors dominated by profit-maximizing firms

It amazing how hard these companies fight against the things are the most effective (taxes).

Beehaw uses Open Collective Europe Foundation (OCEF) as a fiscal host.

OCEF charges an 8% Host Fee on Revenue

OCEF uses the Open Collective Platform for the various functions and services it provides (like payment processing and accounting tools)

The Open Collective Platform charges a 15% Revenue Share for Fiscal Hosts that collect donations through the platform.

Any tip given to the platform does not go to Beehaw at all.

All of the above is in addition to payment processing fees charged by Stripe.

It’s nice to see that others get it. Unfortunately, neither of us have any immediate influence on the largest social media platforms.

This is presented in a confusing way to me. But I see after reading it twice that monthly recurring contributions are $80.82 per month (I’m assuming this is after fees that OCEF charges).

You have set a rough target of increasing that monthly recurring contributions amount to about $185 so that one off contributions aren’t being relied upon to meet monthly expenses.

This seems like a very reasonable ask and very attainable.

I’m copying a monthly donation link here for people that don’t want to scroll back up:

https://opencollective.com/beehaw-collective/donate?interval=month

New Jersey has a law like that for gas. Can only increase the price one time per day. But ut doesn’t apply to all gass stations, just ones on the highway rest areas.

You made a good point and I immediately thought that reporting a gross profit dollar amount as an example of how profit margins are not slim as simply inappropriate. And I would have responded myself if you hadn’t. There’s no single dollar figure that can inform anyone about anything useful about the profit margin of a business. A number without context is useless.

I don’t see how that thought process is exclusive to people who are or consider themselves to be smart.

They aren’t saying that this is exclusive to people who consider themselves smart. They’re saying that they’re more likely to fall for the trap by engaging with the assumption of not being susceptible to being tricked. Although I think the author does conflate smart people with people who think of themselves as smart inappropriately.

AT&T simply had the laws protect them from competition for 105 years.

Cool beans!

See you on Monday!

How often do you repost this question. Seems like the intent is weekly but it’s been 18 days.

I hope no matter your situation that you find a way to avoid heroin or any other addiction to cope with your troubles.

Residential home construction and renovation has always been a magnet for fraud. Take at least the the same level of precaution for solar installations.

Back when Bitcoin was released, nobody was giving a thought to computer energy use.

It didn’t take long before people saw that energy was a major factor in cost of operations of the network.

It was a poor design decision

One that is fiercely defended by people who invested into the implementation. So it may not have started with it being anticipated, but not it is and people are actively choosing to perpetuate this use of energy.

Back when Bitcoin was released, nobody was giving a thought to computer energy use.

VT for long term
Money Market Funds for short term

Both create harmful air.

That’s exactly my point.

This argument from authority really falls flat when looking at the proposals put forth. Perhaps these are not the best minds despite the efforts of the admissions department.

I’m skeptical of the idea that student protesters typically identify the optimal solution to the problems they identify.

They may be correct in identifying and calling attention to issues, but many of the solutions I’ve seen proposed by protesters at colleges seem at best tangential to addressing the issues.

If the only goal is to reduce emissions, your concerns of the production and use of more EVs should absolutely be taken into account. However, I don’t think that should be the only concern when thinking about the ethics of the proposed policy.

If that’s all one wants to consider when evaluating the ethics of the policy in question, then it seems like the “correct” policy.

You seem to have presented a non sequitur based argument.

I wasn’t making any positive claims. I was clarifying the terms of what one might consider “working”. And how we may want to consider how we value people without regard to geopolitical boarders.