Before everyone piles on, it's probably worth understanding the context.
Yes, this was a daft idea, doomed to generate outrage, and outrage is an appropriate response.
However, as the article says, this non-profit was insolvent. This type of non-profit is not flying a CEO around in a private jet. Their entire budget for the year was $400k. Enough for rent, several staff, snacks and art supplies for kids.
The budget was very likely prepared by a volunteer, with limited skills and experience.
It's often also unclear what an organisation's total debts are. It's not at all uncommon to realise an error has been made in understanding an award or something and suddenly the centre owes 5 years back pay for underpaid over time or some such.
Suddenly the centre is insolvent and is required by law to cease it's activities.
At this point someone has had the misguided notion that the problem can be fixed by coercing parents to contribute towards the debts.
Explaining the problem to parents and asking for donations would've been fine, but obviously they wouldn't have received $40k in donations so it would've been unsuccessful.
Tying the request to the kids "art" is just poor taste all the way up and down.
So yeah, it's offensive, but it's not nefarious, and while it's really daft I can at least understand how it happened.
Sorry I don't really understand what your argument actually is.
Since the dawn of writing, legislators (kings / politicians) have laid down the rules. Regulators (police, tax office) have enforced the rules. And courts decide whether the rules have actually been broken and what the penalties ought to be.
In the vast majority of self assessment situations, it's very obvious how the law applies to ones situation, there is very little doubt. You just follow the rules and face penalties for breaches.
In those few situations which are unclear, you generally have a range of options:
review other similar cases heard by courts which might be analogous to your own.
consult a specialist who can interpret and apply the rules for you.
ask the god damn regulator where you stand and have them help you self-assess.
Finally, most legislation relating to corporate behavior has safe harbor clauses. That is, where someone has acted reasonably, taken reasonable steps, and made a good-faith attempt to interpret and apply the rules correctly, the regulator won't penalise them even if they're found to have breached the rules.
That is to say penalties are usually only applied where there's a breach, and there's no scope to argue that it was a reasonable error.
This is a fair and transparent structure with which to ensure the rules are applied fairly to everyone. It's very robust, tolerant of edge cases, and the most efficient compliance structure we have.
I don't really know what an alternative would be? If you want a regulator to publish a list of which apps / companies are effected in what way, that's just nuts. The antithesis of modern democratic economic regulation.
It's the same way we do tax - self compliance. You self report but if you're caught breaking the rules then you face punishments.
If the administration just made a list of who's effected, it would be perpetually incomplete. This way, everyone is effected.
They can't just unilaterally decide that your self assessment is "wrong" without explanation. Also their decisions about who is effected are public, and can be relied on by others to self assess.
I don't think Brave has any special magic that other browsers don't.
My understanding is, all the workarounds in use recently work or fail depending on the IP address you have.
I don't know anything about this change but it seems to simply require a JS engine in your client. Any browser has that, so the browser addons probably aren't effected by this change.
However, it's clear that YT is waging an incremental campaign here. Today it's yt-dlp, next week... who knows.
While anything to do with computers is "math" that doesn't mean that someone who is an expert in math has any special knowledge about everything related to computers.
It's true that you don't need to be an expert to recognize the potential issues.
My point is, this guy's opinion is not supported by any special credentials.
I happen to agree with the guy in this case, and I acknowledge that he's one of the more progressive pope's in a while, but lets not pretend he has any special knowledge about AI or really anything other than catholicism for that matter.
I'm going to say it's very poorly designed such that any conclusions are manufactured.
They split 500 volunteers into 4 groups: with or without BotW and with or without nostalgia movies.
The obvious problem is that only people who have a pre-existing appreciation for this type of media would volunteer.
There's a bunch of other problems. The studies author(s) are very clearly fans of the games and movies. It' s impossible not to see that from the study design.
There's no effort to control for external factors. For example, if you stop studying all night and do anything else, your mental health will probably improve. Given that the study ran for 3 weeks, my guess is that it was conducted over a semester break.
These are just the obvious problems.
If you enjoy games that's great. You don't need a study to tell you that doing things you enjoy is good for you.
Before everyone piles on, it's probably worth understanding the context.
Yes, this was a daft idea, doomed to generate outrage, and outrage is an appropriate response.
However, as the article says, this non-profit was insolvent. This type of non-profit is not flying a CEO around in a private jet. Their entire budget for the year was $400k. Enough for rent, several staff, snacks and art supplies for kids.
The budget was very likely prepared by a volunteer, with limited skills and experience.
It's often also unclear what an organisation's total debts are. It's not at all uncommon to realise an error has been made in understanding an award or something and suddenly the centre owes 5 years back pay for underpaid over time or some such.
Suddenly the centre is insolvent and is required by law to cease it's activities.
At this point someone has had the misguided notion that the problem can be fixed by coercing parents to contribute towards the debts.
Explaining the problem to parents and asking for donations would've been fine, but obviously they wouldn't have received $40k in donations so it would've been unsuccessful.
Tying the request to the kids "art" is just poor taste all the way up and down.
So yeah, it's offensive, but it's not nefarious, and while it's really daft I can at least understand how it happened.