aezell

1600 and your GPA was 4.0. Any other answer proves you aren't trying hard enough to get the job.

I took too much cold medicine and was given access to a coding agent. This is the result.

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.

Bummed there wasn't one vampire joke or pun or allusion in this entire article.

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'm interested to see how this goes.

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.

Would you go into a store, pick up the newspaper, and walk out without paying?

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.

I spent a lot of time doing newspaper and magazine layout with this back in the day.

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.

> Wow, just wow.

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.

I was an employee, past tense. I was referencing my own salary. I know nothing about the endowment so I can't speak to it.

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.

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Medium-...

[2] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org

[3] https://gerrit.wikimedia.org

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.

If you got paid market rate, people would be on here complaining about your compensation.

One of the issues here is this funding goes toward some of the more hidden work that folks using and even contributing to Wikipedia don't see. Let's take two examples:

1) Automatically identifying, reporting, and perhaps removing spam, hate speech, advertising, conflict of interest, etc. content. That's done in part by a system called ORES which was designed, built, and is managed by folks working for Wikimedia. Could volunteers have built such a system? Of course. Did they? No.

2) Identifying, blocking, and reporting child pornography. Like any site on the Internet that allows users to upload images, thousands of images of child pornography are uploaded to Wikipedia (and its sibling projects) on a regular basis. There are tools designed to catch most of these. However, humans still have to moderate a lot of this content. Would you volunteer to do that work all day long? I wouldn't. And that's why someone needs to be paid to do it.

So, while there is likely bloat in the organization (as in any group of humans endeavoring toward a shared goal), there is a lot of work done that volunteers wouldn't or couldn't or simply shouldn't do.

There's an entire site dedicated to their financials including entire audited financial reports. [https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/financial-reports/]

They burned it!

hahaha - Friend, this is a news website not a scientific forum. Relax.

I'm going to assume you are in the US and are primarily interested in English-language outlets. If not, you likely have some great local options that aren't US-centric.

So then, I think the Guardian [https://www.theguardian.com] is a decent "all around" choice that has enough interesting edges to not feel redundant. It's especially good if you want to check out their UK or International editions to get something not so US-biased on occasion.

The NY Times [https://www.nytimes.com] is an obvious choice and it has its merits. Increasingly, the editorial choices seem to make less and less sense. I get it for $3 a month and for that price, it's worthwhile.

The LA Times [https://www.latimes.com] is slightly less globally focused but if you live on the US West Coast, it might be more applicable than other options.

The Miami Herald [https://www.miamiherald.com] used to be an interesting change of pace and perspective with some wonderful columnists. However, its parent company was recently purchased by a private equity firm so it remains to be seen what the commitment level is.

My mom lived there for years when I was in high school and college. My wife (girlfriend at the time) and I visited my Mom in Antofagasta. We took a bus from Antofagasta to San Pedro de Atacama for a few days. At some point before arriving in San Pedro, we were the last people on the bus. The driver pulled over on the side of the road in the middle of this desert. No other people or cars or anything in sight. He motioned for us to get off the bus. He was increasingly loud and insistent. My wife speaks Spanish but his accent was thick and the bus's engine was loud so she had a hard time understanding him. I was certain we were going to be robbed and potentially murdered. But, he got off first and walked over to a big rock and went around it on a small ledge. I peeked around the edge of this boulder and he was making the universal camera/photo gesture. Ahead of us was the Valle de la Luna [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valle_de_la_Luna_(Chile)]. The sun was setting and it was one of the most beautiful sights I've seen in my life. After we arrived at San Pedro, he made sure we got to the hostel and we shared an ice cream in the central plaza with his children.

It's easy to conflate Wikipedia and Wikimedia but they are very different things, both in practice and in legal definitions. Lots of comments here are saying that Wikipedia should do something about this. That's equivalent to saying that you should get thousands of random Internet people to agree to something. There is no organization known as Wikipedia that you can appeal to.

So, then they say, "Wikimedia should do something." Wikimedia has very limited control over the content that exists on Wikipedia and this ruling relies on and validates that position.

I'm not arguing that this is ideal or preferable. I'm saying that the lines between these two words are important and yet sometimes difficult to define. The crux is that Wikipedia is wholly separate from Wikimedia in all the ways that matter in a case like this.

I'm guessing that, especially for the earlier films, if there are a lot of outside constraints on the stories you can tell then your creative energy goes into how you are telling the story that's allowed. That's obviously an oversimplification but for many creative folks, that drive to organize the world in a new way is what constitutes their art so it has to be expressed in whatever way possible.

I see a LOT of lawnmowers in my area with this kind of tire. It's especially prevalent on the larger, commercial mowers that landscape professionals use.