That depends on what you mean by ethically. If you are sharing the names and contact information for the individual donors then yes. Charities spend a lot of money to find and develop donors. They may lose money prospecting for new donors and then spend money to build a relationship with that person and solicit future contributions. If you aren't sharing that information, then you are stealing the relationship with the donor which in the long run is is most of the value of the contribution. Essentially whatever you give the charity is just an expense of building your donor base at their expense and using their work to solicit contributions.

Most people who became successful did it while believing their own bullshit.>p>

Of course, then there are the people who were failures because they believed it

There are a lot more of the latter.

True enough. But not without the organization's knowledge or approval.

I grew up in the "Twin Cities" of Minneapolis and Saint Paul Minnesota The argument about daylight savings time was largely between farmers ("the cows need to be milked and they don't go by the clock") and urban folks ("its not safe for my kids to walk to school in the dark.").

One year, for reasons lost to memory, the Mayor of Saint Paul decided to start daylight savings time a week earlier than the rest of the state. The result was a different time in Minneapolis and Saint Paul. The suburbs all had to decide which city they were going to coordinate with. Those closest to Saint Paul mostly followed Saint Paul's lead. But I lived in a suburb right on the border with Saint Paul that decided to stick with Minneapolis. So the shopping centers on either side of the street dividing the two were opening and closing at different times. The University of Minnesota had two campuses, one in Saint Paul and one in Minneapolis. I am not sure how they dealt with class schedules.

The result of this dispute was a bill introduced by Minnesota congressional representatives establishing a national standard.

They review evidence and decide people aren't guilty every day. Have you ever actually contested a police officer's decision in court. Try challenging a traffic ticket sometime.

Day 1: Go to country court house to schedule a hearing

Day 2: Arrive at 8:00 am as ordered; Judge arrives at 9:00; 11:45 - Judge starts to hear cases of people who lack an attorney. Your case is called and you plead not guilty. A trial date is set for some time in the future. Takes less than 3 minutes.

Day 3: Arrive at 8:00 am as scheduled. Informed that the trials won't start until the afternoon. The early time is to give you a chance to negotiate a plea. You can wait until the trial or make a deal. When you say you will wait, prosecutor tells you he doesn't think the officer's report really supports the charge and he will move to have it dismissed.

Pleading guilty will cost you $100 and a stamp to mail the ticket.

Maybe in theory, but not in reality. In reality the defense attorney, the prosecutor and the judge all have an interest in settling the case without a trial. They are all looking for reasons the defendant is guilty. An innocent defendant is a royal pain in the but who will make more work for them.

You aren't a corporation. You'll get put in jail, not sued.

No, its not. That model was an approved fundraising effort by the organization. Organizations agreed to it because they got the pittance that was left over after the phone operation was paid. There are plenty of non-profits out there with very high fund raising costs.

This is entirely different. Just imagine if someone set up a site with Go Fund Me pages, took contributions, paid themselves a fee and sent the remainder to the real Go Fund Me page. Then using search optimization moved their page to the top of searches so whenever someone heard about a Go Fund Me page they ended up on the intermediate page. Its called fraud.

I think its important to remember the "trust fund" is a book keeping entry. It holds special treasury notes that were loans of excess Social Security taxes to the general fund. Now that Social Security benefits cost more than the taxes collected those loans are being repaid out of the general fund to pay for social security benefits. That money mostly comes from new loans in the form of regular treasury bonds. In short, the money the general fund used to owe to the "trust fund" is now owed to other investors.

So what happens when the book keeping entry says there is no more money left in the "trust fund". The general fund has already been borrowing money to pay off the trust fund bonds and can go right on borrowing to pay full social security benefits as promised. There are other solutions and it is very unlikely anyone will decide its a great idea to leave a bunch of elderly people unable to support themselves or pay their debts.

As I understand the problem with AI it is also fancy book keeping. Companies are "investing" in AI and AI is using the money to buy their products. If AI fails to generate income they lose not only their investment but their customer. With overcapacity and no capital, they stop buying from their suppliers and lay people off and reduce expenses. Their suppliers likewise now have excess capacity and fewer customers and follow suit. The laid off workers stop spending so other companies also start to cut back. And so forth.

If you have enough large companies all putting money into the same pot and the pot disappears the problem can be catastrophic. That is the fear. It has nothing to do with how "important" AI is.

Why is that comparison relevant here? My guess is that weight is not a very important limitation for package delivery compared to volume. As for the tree comparison, I think you would find most trees have far more mass in their trunks than their collection of branches.

You are right of course that semi's are more efficient. Planes probably not. But when you consider how far the package has to travel from china/vietnam/indonesia ... to get to the door, the length of that last trip to the door is pretty trivial. No matter how large the difference between ICE and EV emissions, it is going to be a trivial part of the totl emissions created.

Except the car did detect her and would have stopped if that safety feature hadn't been turned off. If you kill a pedestrian its your fault period. You were driving too fast for safety.

No, robot swarms are a lot more interesting.

We aren't talking about the actual area, we are talking about mercury in the watershed. And the watershed includes a lot of structures, including mines.

Here was the starting point for this discussion:

Is there actually a way to use the internet safely? I can't even know whether AI is being used on a web page I visit or by the search engine I use. And not even the creators can be sure it is secure or not being used as a predator.