I went to school in the 1980s. That was the time that calculators were first used in class and there was a similar outcry about how children shouldn’t be allowed to use them, that they should use mental arithmetic or even abacuses.
Sounds pretty ridiculous now, and I think this current problem will sound just as silly in 10 or 20 years.
I bought NMS when it was released, and hated it. Ok, it’s legendary as something that was released before it was ready and that undoubtedly spoiled it for me - endless running and nothing to do, and I’m sure it’s better now.
Elite Dangerous was quite fun for a while, but I got frustrated with the flying aspect quite a bit and after several deaths I gave up. I’m old enough to remember the first Elite, which was even more unforgiving.
Freelancer sounds interesting - I started searching and landed on the Amazon page for it, which told me " You last purchased this item on 29 Apr 2005". I have no recollection of the thing, but then I have played a lot of games. Still, worth a revisit - I’ll take a look. Thanks.
<Reads all the other comments>
Ok, but apart from that, it’s okay, right?
Seriously - what is a good space exploration/trading game that doesn’t require a huge learning curve? (I’m not a fan of flying stuff and too much trading is boring, but I do like exploring)
I’m not American, but CVE’s absolutely form the cornerstone of IT security, and are the trusted keystone of industry security globally.
Truthfully, it’s just an excuse to assuage the guilt arising from refusing to support these organisations.
Sometimes.
Sometimes it’s a pretty accurate statement.
I used to run a medium-large charity. I have a fair bit of experience in fundraising and management. Most donators would be shocked at how little their donation actually achieves in isolation. Also at the waste that often goes on, and certainly the salaries at the upper tiers.
And I could also say that guilt is exactly why people donate. It’s to feel good about themselves, they’re buying karma. Central heating for the soul. I won’t say that’s a bad thing, but it is a thing. It’s also exactly how charities fundraise, because it works. That’s why your post and tv adverts are full of pictures of sad children crying. Every successful charity today is that way because it knows how to manipulate potential supporters. Is that always wrong? Of course not, charities couldn’t do good things without money. But sometimes the ethics in fundraising are extremely flexible.
I actually took a look at Wikipedia’s accounts last week as I remembered that campaign when I saw the latest campaign and did some due diligence before donating. I didn’t donate, but I’m still glad Wikipedia exists.
What I remembered: That hosting costs were tiny and Wikimedia foundation had enough already saved up to operate for over a hundred years without raising any more.
What I saw: That if that was true, it isn’t any longer. It’s managed growth.
I don’t think they are at any risk of financial collapse, but they are cutting their cloth to suit their income. That’s normal in business, including charities. If you stop raising money, you stagnate. You find things to spend that money on that are within the charity’s existing aims.
Some highlights from 2024: $106million in wages. 26m in awards and grants. 6m in “travel and conferences”. Those last two look like optional spends to me, but may be rewards to the volunteer editors. The first seems high, but this is only a light skim
Net assets at EOY = $271 million. Hosting costs per year are $3million. It’s doing okay.
If you’re curious; https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/financial-reports/
Hah! I had a calculator watch too - and I’m certain it got me my first girlfriend when I was 11!
You’re right about that exact argument being used widely, I certainly was told I’d never have a calculator with me. Little did they know.