Publii. It has a WP Importer tool. Your site layout looks similar to some of the free themes. The "old school" simplicity of using a desktop CMS is great in my opinion.
I have no issues with the wine before hand but here is an alternative.
I wear a leopard print thong to interviews, they are my interview man-panties. (I do wear pants over them) I am a large, hairy, ugly man with no reason to wear this under normal circumstances. No matter how much wine my wife drank she would not be impressed. On the day of the interview, I feel special. Not sexy, but special. I know something the interviewers don't know. The pinching of my ding and dongles reminds me of this. It also makes it hard to take the interview too serious. Bonus, when you get home and take them off, any stress is instantly relieved.
This may sound like a joke but I am serious. I think the reason it works for me is because it reminds me that I am in charge. I do what I want. I am literally not dressing to impress.
An interview is often perceived as a candidate trying to impress the employer. BS. It is two (equal) parties trying to find if they are a good match. I don't want to work in a place if I am not a good fit, not skilled enough, or not wanted. If I don't get offered a job then I am not wanted there or valued by the company- well I wouldn't want to work at that place. If I don't get the job, I didn't want it anyway- I see this as truth. Perhaps a mental trick on myself but if so, I fall for it every time.
I think the wine solution would mesh well with my man-thong technique. I may add wine to my system. I am currently drinking Keystone (piss-water) beer. If I drank a couple glasses of fancy-pants 2022 refreshing white Franzia while donning my undergarments I would be unstoppable.
Your mileage may vary. I am currently unemployed but happy as hell so... whatevs, grain of salt. Best of luck.
There was a character that did this in the HBO show (Oz). A high functioning executive, brokering big deals and on the outside looked the part perfectly. Except for that one little secret.
Thanks for sharing, it's an interesting life hack. But one of those things you have to try I suppose to understand. I'm still on the fence though :)
What are you trying to achieve, or what do you mean by "give back"? Which is more important, helping people or sticking with your SE skills? There isn't a wrong answer- I sincerely can't tell your priorities, goals, etc.
Who do you want help is the first question, then figure out how based on their needs. Who is in "the community" you want to give back to? I think one of the reasons you have come up dry is because there isn't a true need in the communities you are looking at.
I know this sounds critical, which it is, but hopefully not too critical. SE is fluff, those that desperately need help, they don't need code. People need shelter, food, water, health, safety- the rest is gravy. Money, which you have, can provide these basic needs. Donate money to charities that specialize in providing these things. Volunteer with the charities of your choice. Convert your skills and experience as a SE into cash (a placeholder for value), let the charities use your value to help people. It doesn't sound as satisfying or glamorous as teaching/mentoring but it will probably have a much greater impact. If you can make $300 per hour do that and hire 10 teachers/tutors instead of teaching yourself.
Other thoughts
-your money gives you time, time for you to volunteer and help
-Empower small local business, true mom and pops (build free websites, inventory tracking software, etc.)
-Software/sites for local charities (maybe as simple as etting up square donations on their site)
“I know this sounds critical, which it is” You have no reason to be critical at all. The author is expressing a desire to help people. They are here because they are unclear how to do so.
That being said, I actually really agree with what you’re saying. (So if your tone was to get strangers on the internet to read a valid point, you succeeded with me at least.) To summarize the greatest takeaway for me: technically the most efficient way to give back (definitely not glamorous) is probably donating further SE income.
This will be life changing for me! @bensonn do you know how can I get a free laptop? Thank you!
I'm currently really struggling in life (I barely eat once a day at the moment) but I'm really passionate about Linux/free software. So, a free laptop could really help me get local jobs (sysadmin or web developer for SMEs), put food on the table, & pay rent!
Wikipedia/Wikimedia is worth hundreds of dollars per year to me. I occasionally throw $20 at them. It is a steal. I never asked myself if they have too much money or if they are using it "correctly".
The main donation page doesn't seem bad to me. Nowhere do they claim they are struggling or may go under. In fact, they say "thriving" and that a small donation will keep it thriving for years to come.
To those upset with them, what would you do? All of their other projects are about free information. Are people upset about wikidata or wikiversity exist? Should they have only done Wikipedia and stopped? Should they not ask for money until they are desperate and in a dire situation? Should they not use any marketing speak and say, "we have hundreds of millions of dollars but would like more please."
Comparing them to FAANG/MAMAA, it is no comparison at all. The value is great and pure: nice, fast, simple, useful interface. They don't have malware, ads, tracking scripts, popups, spam, or dark patterns. Unlike social media there is no envy/depression side effects. They don't try to get you addicted and gamify it. They don't push controversial news just to boost engagement. They respect your privacy, ublock origin has nothing to block on their site.
It seems like Wikimedia is getting hell on here for having very high standards and maybe not quite living up to people's expectations. Whereas the FAANGs have zero standards, don't respect users at all, are 100% profit driven (and already have vastly more money), but they are ok because... some reason.
Maybe in the pure STEM subsections but anything to do with humanities is highly subjective and biased.
Even in the hard sciences I find that Wikipedia is a just good starting point: scan the references for the real material. It helps if you have access to real libraries, both physical and digital.
Personally I stopped donating to them when I discovered how difficult it was to correct errors in literally my own family's history; there's always some "editor" sitting there to roll it back in seconds.
> Personally I stopped donating to them when I discovered how difficult it was to correct errors in literally my own family's history;
As it should be. Wikipedia is not your personal blog. If you cannot prove what you say is true to an acceptable standard it should be reverted. That is how it wikipedia stays reliable.
Of course wikipedia is far from perfect when it comes to reliability.
However, given you did not include a citation for the sale of that bridge that meets wikipedia's guidelines on appropriate sources, i am not sure it is quite the comeback you think it is.
Wikipedia being a starting point is one of my favorite things about it. I really like that all their sources are cited and linked to. It always amazes me that news organizations don't cite their sources or have links to the original source.
On that same note, could that be why your family history gets rolled back? No doubt it would be frustrating to have a change you know is real get rolled back but it would make sense from an objective editorial standpoint. That said, I get why you wouldn't want to donate. I personally come from a long line of nobodies (and am proudly carrying on that tradition) so I will never have this problem!
That gibberish about primary sources is one of the fundamental ways in which Wikipedia stays at least partially accurate. Wikipedia is not a blog, it's just meant to be a gathering of information from other sources. So adding facts which are not anywhere else online is not the sign of a broken system, it's the sign of a system that cares about citations and about being a reliable source of information. It's unfortunate when people try to add factual things, but if anyone was able to edit Wikipedia to add whatever, it would have become a cesspool long ago.
I've checked image color extractor with the image you sent. The problem is area of the umbrella is small, so red or green color is not represented in the extracted colors. I'll check if I can improve the tool by eliminating some similar colors even if their dominance is high.
This says he "commits" 10B to a new initiative named after himself. What do terms like "commits" and "pledges" mean? From the article it looks like all he did was post on Instagram.
Is there more to this than an IG post? Is there anything legally binding, anything that actually moves the money outside of his control? Did his networth just drop 10B?
Is 100 billion really that much? The church has 16 million members. That is about $6,000 per member. The church has had 200 years of tithing and compound interest to get to this point. If used as an endowment to support 16 million people in 170+ countries that doesn't seem too crazy.
A single human (not mentioning any names) having 100 billion seems crazy.
This isn't that the church has $100 billion dollars. They actually are estimated to be worth more than Apple in real estate and cash.
This $100B is one single fund that is a "secret" fund. It was collected by the church members donating to charity, but asking the church to allocate the funds. So this is in addition to all the other offerings a member is required to make (10% of pre-tax gross income). So the church took money promising to allocate it to charity, and the church members thought they were donating to charity, but the church instead siphoned it off and kept it for themselves in a secret fund that they denied existed. It took a whistleblower from within the fund's organization to reveal it to the public.
So this is in addition to normal money that the church has, or its real estates, or its hundreds of billions in other investments. This is actually a tiny slice of the pie, but it was collected maliciously and wasn't reported to the IRS.
"kept it for themselves"---it still belongs to the church.
I thought everybody assumed, since the church so frequently taught its members about prudent financial management, that the church itself was doing the same thing.
I've left the church, I have many criticisms of it, but I really don't have a problem with an organization taking the long view and accumulating a large enough reserve to survive on the interest. It's the same approach universities and other large nonprofits use. And it's not like it's particularly neglecting its present-day mission either. Probably is too stingy, though (e.g. using volunteers to clean buildings.)
> A single human (not mentioning any names) having 100 billion seems crazy.
Technically, legally, the current president of the Mormon church, Russel Nelson, has those 100 billion dollars, and everything else the church owns, because of its corporate structure.
Those assets, technically and legally, belong to the office Nelson occupies, not Nelson personally. It's a corporation sole, which is often used by Bishops of other churches to hold the assets of a diocese. The alternative would be the corporation aggregate with a board of directors.
16 million members claimed, closer to 20%-30% attend, maybe 20% of that figure pay substantial amounts (excluding children, impoverished, most families are single-income homes due to Mormon doctrine, etc.)
$100 billion in one fund. $32 billion accounted for in other funds [0]. Not to mention 2% of the land in Florida, several billion dollars in commercial and residential real estate. Who knows what else they're hiding.
And 16 million members is fools' accounting. It doesn't account for the millions of people like me who don't go to church and yet are still members because I don't want to pay money to hire a lawyer to force the church to take my name off the records.
No, that is no longer true. Because of the popularity of services like quitmormon.com, all resignation requests have to be notarized since a couple of months back.
My dude, you've obviously spent hours on hacker news trying to defend your belief system (or lack thereof). Just let it be, if you don't want to be Mormon anymore, then don't. Your inability to live with your decisions is painfully clear by the time you invest trying to publicly justify your choices.
Move on like the dozens of people I've known that just sent in a letter and have not been harassed since.
Edit: Also, the part you edited out wasn't as clever as you hoped, glad you removed it.
My search stopped working months ago, typing anything blanked out whole the Start menu. I figured Windows was punishing me for turning Cortana off in the settings. At some point in the last few weeks a Windows update fixed my search. I agree with a lot of posters- I won't use Windows search. It doesn't do what I want or need, and does not function how I expect.
I had never heard of Everything but just downloaded it and tried it. It is fast! I typed in YYYY-MM-DD for a few different dates. I have never used OneDrive, do not want to use OneDrive and wish I could uninstall OneDrive. OneDrive creates ~10 new files every day.
The broken (now fixed but still stupid) search is just a symptom of a bloated quantity-over-quality, walled-garden, rented-not-owned, OSaaS.
"All the books on Amazon are about other people, I want to read a book about me."
That is not at all how you phrased it but in spirit of self-awareness and improvement I reworded it as crass as possible to make the following point- maybe books focused on people dealing with narcissistic people is a great place to start.
*I have zero qualifications in mental health/psychology.
