Re: OT: Charities (a rant) (was: Re: Who pays Debian developement)

[Timothy M Butterworth]

On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 2:54 PM Dan Ritter  wrote:

> to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 02:05:16PM -0500, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > The reasons that there are quite a few charities that I do not
> contribute to
> > > has to do with two (related) things:
> >
> > Quite the Scientific Method (TM). Making a few things up to make your
> > point :-)
> >
> > Now: Pick one. Prove that it's bad (for a 501, as the SPI is, it
> > should be feasible: AFAIK their records are open)
>
> Because SPI is a US registered charity, it is covered by
> charitynavigator.or g
>

I use Amazon Smile with SPI so my shopping benefits open source.


> https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/113390208
>
> which says that as of the last tax failing, SPI spent 94% of
> income on their purpose, rather than overhead.
>
> -dsr-
>
>

-- 
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian - The universal operating system
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://www.debian.org/
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀

Re: OT: Charities (a rant) (was: Re: Who pays Debian developement)

[Dan Ritter]

to...@tuxteam.de wrote: 
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 02:05:16PM -0500, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > The reasons that there are quite a few charities that I do not contribute 
> > to 
> > has to do with two (related) things:
> 
> Quite the Scientific Method (TM). Making a few things up to make your
> point :-)
> 
> Now: Pick one. Prove that it's bad (for a 501, as the SPI is, it
> should be feasible: AFAIK their records are open)

Because SPI is a US registered charity, it is covered by
charitynavigator.org:

https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/113390208

which says that as of the last tax failing, SPI spent 94% of
income on their purpose, rather than overhead.

-dsr-

Re: OT: Charities (a rant) (was: Re: Who pays Debian developement)

[tomas]

On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 02:05:16PM -0500, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:

[...]

> The reasons that there are quite a few charities that I do not contribute to 
> has to do with two (related) things:

Quite the Scientific Method (TM). Making a few things up to make your
point :-)

Now: Pick one. Prove that it's bad (for a 501, as the SPI is, it
should be feasible: AFAIK their records are open)

Cheers
-- 
t


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

OT: Charities (a rant) (was: Re: Who pays Debian developement)

[rhkramer]

On Tuesday, January 31, 2023 08:00:14 AM gene heskett wrote:
> It does, but we should all remember that TANSTAAFL is a universal law.
> It cannot be broken.

Aside: Not the purpose of my response here, so plaese do not reply, but I 
believe that I am supplying some free lunches.  If not, I'll have to think 
about and figure out in what way those lunches are not free.  (I am not 
charging anyone any kind of fee, nor asking for anything like recognition (I 
guess I might sometime get some recognition), but I don't feel like that is a 
motivation for my efforts.  (And I'm intentionally not describing those 
efforts, 
they are not related to my comments on this (or any other) mailing list.)

> We are also very aware that info on the suppliers of such funds is a
> valuable commodity to the hacker. There are quite a number of American
> based charities I do not contribute to simply because they insist on
> ones social security number. That ain't gonna happen. Make it the equ of
> me handing you a $50 bill, untraceable cash, no strings attached. It's
> my thank you.

The reasons that there are quite a few charities that I do not contribute to 
has to do with two (related) things:

   * How much of my contribution actually makes it through to the targeted 
(trying to think of the right word) -- maybe just the target -- actually to a 
disabled veteran, or starving child, or ...

   * How much money the top executives of the organization make.  I won't get 
into detail here, but if they are taking home $350,000 a year and expecting 
donations from people making $30,000 a year (by advertising on TV looking for 
contributions of, for example, $19 a month, I have a problem with that.

Further (is this #3? -- I can't count ;-) in some cases those charities 
advertising on TV use names similar to the names of some actual charitable 
organiztion, but they are not actually that organization and they pass through 
only a very small portion of their income to that charitable organization.

Just to make up an example (and picking on maybe a recognizable name just so 
the example is, I hope, easeir to understand:

There is a St. Jude's (children's?) hospital.

Imgaine that there is also an organization named "Friends of St. Jude's" 
(completely made up as far as I know).  Imagine that they advertise on TV 
seeking $19 per month contributions, and then pass on a fraction of that to 
St. Judes?

Your contribution is diluted twice -- by the overhead of St. Jude's Hospital 
itself and the overhead of "Friends of St. Judes"  (and it is quite possible 
(I've found several examples) that the top (5?) executives are taking home 
upwards of $350,000 / year each.

-- 
rhk 

(sig revised 20221206)

If you reply: snip, snip, and snip again; leave attributions; avoid HTML; 
avoid top posting; and keep it "on list".  (Oxford comma (and semi-colon) 
included at no charge.)  If you revise the topic, change the Subject: line.  
If you change the topic, start a new thread.

Writing is often meant for others to read and understand (legal documents 
excepted?) -- make it easier for your reader by various means, including 
liberal use of whitespace (short paragraphs, separated by whitespace / blank 
lines) and minimal use of (obscure?) jargon, abbreviations, acronyms, and 
references.

If someone has already responded to a question, decide whether any response 
you add will be helpful or not ...

A picture is worth a thousand words.  A video (or "audio"): not so much -- 
divide by 10 for each minute of video (or audio) or create a transcript and 
edit it to 10% of the original.

A speaker who uses ahhs, ums, or such may have a real physical or mental 
disability, or may be showing disrespect for his listeners by not properly 
preparing in advance and thinking before speaking.  (Remember Cicero who did 
not have enough time to write a short missive.)  (That speaker might have been 
"trained" to do this by being interrupted often if he pauses.)

A radio (or TV) station which broadcasts speakers with high pitched voices (or 
very low pitched / gravelly voices) (which older people might not be able to 
hear properly) disrespects its listeners.   Likewise if it broadcasts 
extraneous or disturbing sounds (like gunfire or crying), or broadcasts 
speakers using their native language (with or without an overdubbed 
translation).

A person who writes a sig this long probably has issues and disrespects (and 
offends) a large number of readers. ;-)
'