I was in an interview once and the prospective employer asked me what church I attend. I replied, "Catholic." He said, "Is that even Christian?" So, yeah, plenty of Americans have a skewed view of Catholicism.
I had the opposite experience coming from Django/Flask to Elixir/Phoenix. I found it very comfortable and that there were many similar patterns at the framework level. Now, LiveView is a bit of a different story but basic Phoenix routing and views seem quite similar to Django routing and views. Ecto's model schemas have a decent amount of overlap with Django's model objects.
Was it the LiveView stuff that felt foreign? I'd agree there's a learning curve there as someone coming from Django.
I recently used ChatGPT and Claude to help myself build a simple app for my wife. Just listing things and being able to edit them basically. It was VERY frustrating as both models get pretty basic things wrong around the plumbing stuff like configuring SwiftData or CoreData.
I tried it with a version of the prompt(s) I used in that project and I got an app that's just a white page.
I wouldn't rely on their aggregation. But, with a subscription, you can just read the magazines in the same format and layout as they are printed. No aggregation to get in the way.
Apple News does this. Tons of magazines across the spectrum and number of larger US newspapers. If you aren't in the US or at least wanting to read in English, I don't know.
Qobuz markets itself first as a hi-res streaming service. However, it also offers FLAC purchases without DRM that are yours even if you don't continue to use Qobuz. Their selection is very large and might have more options for more well-known acts.
Really, any forum that focuses on a specific niche. They could be some of the best places in the Internet. Facebook ate up most of those amazing communities.
This is not conducive to honest conversation. I've been nothing but polite in our discussion. Your sarcasm here and in further responses isn't constructive.
> Managers earning $300K+ are not getting rich. Good. I guess it's all relative.
It is relative. If you live in San Francisco where the WMF is headquartered, this salary won't make you rich. I wish I could make that much money but given the role and the location, it doesn't seem exorbitant.
It might be instructive to look at how many people are giving money and not just the actual amount of money. I'm honestly saying that. I don't know the numbers because I haven't looked in years. Maybe there's more money because more people use it, more people find value in it, and more people donate. It would be an interesting way to slice the data. What's the average donation size? How has the geographic distribution of donations changed?
It seems like across all these threads, what many people, possibly including you, are responding negatively to is the language in the ads and not strictly the fact that the WMF collects money from people who willingly give it. I've already said that I don't care for the language either. I believe that they could be successful without it. Perhaps, not equally as successful but successful nonetheless. I shared that feedback when I worked there. I want them to appeal to the better angels of our nature.
Still, it's marketing and if my money supports the mission (the whole mission and not just Wikipedia), which by all accounting it does, then I'll continue to donate. The marketing, while undesirable, doesn't change their dedication to the mission.
In an altruistic and idealistic world, sure. But that's not the world I live in.
Personally, I find the ads histrionic and would like them to change. However, an article like this that insinuates something akin to malice or subterfuge instead of recognizing the reality of non-profit fundraising isn't helpful. That was my point.
If you think anyone is getting rich working at the WMF, I can disavow you of that notion. It's just not true. Each of those people is making far below market rate for their respective positions and geographical locations.
As for the language in the ads, it's there because it works. The WMF has tried, many times, language which is less emotional and more objective. It doesn't work. People don't respond.
What you're asking for is to have people donate because of their objective sense of value but that's not how most humans work. The WMF does what works.
Your response doesn't account for the vast change in scale and technology since then. I also was clear that these two things didn't explain all of the expansion just that they were examples of things some folks might not recognize are part of the Foundation's work.
As for laying out their plans, there are dozens of wiki pages[1] dedicated to it and every task[2] and commit[3] to the code is public.
What they tell people in these pleas for donations is the language that actually gets people to donate. If folks would donate after reading the Medium Term Plan, then they would promote but instead humans tend to act only when an emotional appeal is made. That might not work for you but testing and experimenting on those ads proves that it does for most people.
The issue with this kind of thinking is that you can't have the freedom of an impartial supporting organization like Wikimedia without the pitfalls that freedom might trip into in the individual case.
Not giving Wikimedia money does absolutely nothing to stop a bad admin or group of admins from making bad choices. Wikimedia has very little control, if any, over things at that level. They can advocate for change but that change must come from the users themselves.
Exactly. Number of pages is almost meaningless. The system stores a diff of every edit, forever. That includes diffs between binary objects like images and videos.
Increasingly, what's being stored is metadata about the content within those pages. Not to mention projects like Wikidata [https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Main_Page] which is storing "structured knowledge" about literally everything.