I’d say it was 2000 when Gore’s election win was stolen from him.

Are you employed by this company?

Beehaw uses Open Collective Europe Foundation (OCEF) as a fiscal host.

OCEF charges an 8% Host Fee on Revenue

OCEF uses the Open Collective Platform for the various functions and services it provides (like payment processing and accounting tools)

The Open Collective Platform charges a 15% Revenue Share for Fiscal Hosts that collect donations through the platform.

Any tip given to the platform does not go to Beehaw at all.

All of the above is in addition to payment processing fees charged by Stripe.

This is presented in a confusing way to me. But I see after reading it twice that monthly recurring contributions are $80.82 per month (I’m assuming this is after fees that OCEF charges).

You have set a rough target of increasing that monthly recurring contributions amount to about $185 so that one off contributions aren’t being relied upon to meet monthly expenses.

This seems like a very reasonable ask and very attainable.

I’m copying a monthly donation link here for people that don’t want to scroll back up:

https://opencollective.com/beehaw-collective/donate?interval=month

Residential home construction and renovation has always been a magnet for fraud. Take at least the the same level of precaution for solar installations.

Republican voters are never going to change their preference to a democratic candidate based on who the Democratic candidate is. The people who have potential to vote for Democrats aren’t undecided in who they prefer, they’re undecided if they even care enough to vote at all. Getting more people motivated to vote who didn’t vote in the prior election is the only way to gain votes. That’s true for any Democratic or Republican candidate for president. Presidential candidates need to make sure that people who voted in the last election for their party’s candidate don’t become disinterested in voting in the current election.

The tough on crime reputation Harris has may demotivate otherwise likely voters for a Democratic candidate.

I hope she motivates people to vote for her.

Let’s not forget that Bernie was a wealthy, criminal businessman from Manhattan in that movie.

Both create harmful air.

That’s exactly my point.

I’m not trying to downplay the pollutants from incomplete burning of methane (or other gas) combustion. I’m trying to highlight that it isn’t the only consideration when discussion policy or making personal decisions.

Cooking with an electric heat source will produce an equal amount of pollutants from burning oils and organic matter compared to a gas heat source. But a methane or other gas heat source will produce additional (and different) pollutants. Ventilation is important in both scenarios.

FYI - Cooking indoors on electric power sources also screws indoor air quality anytime any fats or organic matter reaches its smoke point or burns. In fact, relative to the food, the methane heat source isn’t as big a factor.

The point is not to be the “rational economist” who doesn’t pick up money off the ground because someone else would have picked it up if it was really there.

this would essentially mean a transfer of wealth from the masses sending remittances to a few HFT traders.

Compared to a frictionless world, this is sub optimal. But as you and the article established, there are frictions that currently result in a tranfer of wealth at a 6% rate of transfer volume which could very well be greater than the future equilibrium you posit.

I think that there are options that could be implemented at scale faster and simpler compared to crypto token exchanges. But any individual current getting hit with high transfer fees could benefit immediately if they know about and learn how to use something like monero.

The report itself is written in very approachable language and is worth reading beyond the summary. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmenvaud/1952/full-report.html

The researchers in the article seem to be interested in that as well. They see their research as a pilot forhow to get useful measurements in many urban centers. I hope they receive more funding.

It seems that the most significant part of this news is the enhancement in detecting atmospheric CO2 concentration in a large urban area. Being able to measure more accurately and precisely will allow better evaluation of mitigation strategies.

Are you going to report balances in € now?

Probably not. There are several alternative projects being worked on with varying states of completeness and refinement. But the alternatives all seem to have off set visions for their projects.

It would be the difference between paying no taxes to either a) paying taxes on all funds received at regular income tax rates without the benefit of deduction of expenses or b) doing 99% of the work to still need to pay income taxes on net income (revenues less expenses). So if you’re going to do the work, it’s worthwhile to do the additional 1% to get all of the benefits.

Thank you for this comment