Fuck you, Wikipedia
-
@boomzilla if you've never said that, then they are possibly scraping by, or at least risk scraping by. Then the funding campaigns are fully justified? Who knows, maybe with a more low profile approach they might not get enough? Melius abundare quam deficere. Also, pecunia non olet.
-
@boomzilla said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
@admiral_p you're full of shit. I'm upset when for profit companies misrepresent things too.
So yours is an aesthetic peeve basically? It's OK when entities take advantage of their position (eg. banks, subprime crisis), it's not OK when their banners are 10M pixels while their office is in central San Francisco?
-
@admiral_p said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
@boomzilla for some reason you accept companies taking advantage of advantageous situations (HUMAN NATURE!) but you don't accept not for profit companies taking advantage of the fact that people will gladly donate money to them
Because the whole point of an NPO is that they DO NOT take advantage of it. They are LEGALLY AND MORALLY OBLIGED to write a mission statement and internal regulations that SPECIFICALLY PROHIBIT this kind of behavior and they MUST stick to it. That's the cost of those sweet sweet tax cuts NPOs receive. If they don't like these rules, they should've started a regular company.
-
@levicki said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
@Dragoon said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
They arn't begging me for my money
You are right about that -- they are taking it without as much as asking you.
Not really. You give them your money to handle. You could very well not do that if banks rub you the wrong way so much.
-
@levicki said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
@Carnage said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
Not really. You give them your money to handle. You could very well not do that if banks rub you the wrong way so much.
You can't do anything without banks nowadays. Gone are the days you were receiving your salary as wads of cash from a teller in your company and where you could have used cash everywhere. You must use banks if you want to live a normal life in civilization. Banks are a government sponsored protection racket.
Just use the bank as a teller proxy? Get the wads of cash as soon as it lands in the account.
Banks provide plenty of convenience, so people use them instead of carrying around wads of cash and keeping tens or hundreds of thousands in cash in their own home.
-
@Gąska said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
@admiral_p said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
@boomzilla for some reason you accept companies taking advantage of advantageous situations (HUMAN NATURE!) but you don't accept not for profit companies taking advantage of the fact that people will gladly donate money to them
Because the whole point of an NPO is that they DO NOT take advantage of it. They are LEGALLY AND MORALLY OBLIGED to write a mission statement
Yes but they're not monks. Having a "mission" doesn't mean that you must live in poverty. "Morally" is legally meaningless, "legally" I bet that they are in the clear. What they're doing is in no way illegal, they're not running a scam, it's just that you disagree with how they're spending the money (presumably?).
and internal regulations that SPECIFICALLY PROHIBIT this kind of behavior and they MUST stick to it.
Which kind of behaviour? I have yet to see proof that they are deliberately mismanaging money or misrepresenting their financial situation.
-
@admiral_p said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
@Gąska said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
@admiral_p said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
@boomzilla for some reason you accept companies taking advantage of advantageous situations (HUMAN NATURE!) but you don't accept not for profit companies taking advantage of the fact that people will gladly donate money to them
Because the whole point of an NPO is that they DO NOT take advantage of it. They are LEGALLY AND MORALLY OBLIGED to write a mission statement
Yes but they're not monks. Having a "mission" doesn't mean that you must live in poverty.
But it does mean not spending money on frivolities. By frivolities I mean anything and everything that isn't strictly necessary to carry out their mission (because that's what the law says NPOs must do).
"Morally" is legally meaningless
Is it non-legally meaningless too? Or does it matter after all?
"legally" I bet that they are in the clear.
Has anyone sued them for that or were they prosecuted? You're old enough to know that legality can only be determined for certain when someone gets sued or prosecuted. Even Wikipedia Foundation themselves don't know if everything they do is legal, and they have no way of knowing until someone sues or prosecutes them!
What they're doing is in no way illegal, they're not running a scam
Not spending as much money as possible on their stated mission is the very definition of charity scam.
and internal regulations that SPECIFICALLY PROHIBIT this kind of behavior and they MUST stick to it.
Which kind of behaviour?
Not spending as much money as possible on their stated mission.
I have yet to see proof that they are deliberately mismanaging money or misrepresenting their financial situation.
And you're not going to get one from me. I'm here only to straighten your bullshit statement that NPOs are under no obligation to be any more charitable than a regular business.
-
@Gąska said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
@admiral_p said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
@Gąska said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
@admiral_p said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
@boomzilla for some reason you accept companies taking advantage of advantageous situations (HUMAN NATURE!) but you don't accept not for profit companies taking advantage of the fact that people will gladly donate money to them
Because the whole point of an NPO is that they DO NOT take advantage of it. They are LEGALLY AND MORALLY OBLIGED to write a mission statement
Yes but they're not monks. Having a "mission" doesn't mean that you must live in poverty.
But it does mean not spending money on frivolities. By frivolities I mean anything and everything that isn't strictly necessary to carry out their mission (because that's what the law says NPOs must do).
How do you prove that something is not strictly necessary?
"Morally" is legally meaningless
Is it non-legally meaningless too? Or does it matter after all?
Heh, it matters when enough people are pissed off about their behaviour. It's safe to say that Wikimedia is fine.
"legally" I bet that they are in the clear.
Has anyone sued them for that or were they prosecuted? You're old enough to know that legality can only be determined for certain when someone gets sued or prosecuted. Even Wikipedia Foundation themselves don't know if everything they do is legal, and they have no way of knowing until someone sues or prosecutes them!
And you're old enough to know that you are innocent until proven guilty (in most Western countries anyway). It's not the same thing as legality, but for all intensive purpoises, it is, or at least it is 90% of the time (random figure).
What they're doing is in no way illegal, they're not running a scam
Not spending as much money as possible on their stated mission is the very definition of charity scam.
Yes, but badmouthing them does not count as not spending as much money as possible on their stated mission.
and internal regulations that SPECIFICALLY PROHIBIT this kind of behavior and they MUST stick to it.
Which kind of behaviour?
Not spending as much money as possible on their stated mission.
Ditto.
I have yet to see proof that they are deliberately mismanaging money or misrepresenting their financial situation.
And you're not going to get one from me. I'm here only to straighten your bullshit statement that NPOs are under no obligation to be any more charitable than a regular business.
They are under no obligation to surrender donations though. If they were misrepresenting their financial situation or mismanaging money then you'd have an argument. But is it their fault the people love Wikipedia? And with no trickery at all (I mean, is a banner in their website "trickery", however large it may be? You need much more for effective psychological trickery, eg. plastering ads everywhere and anywhere).
-
@admiral_p said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
@Gąska said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
@admiral_p said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
@Gąska said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
@admiral_p said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
@boomzilla for some reason you accept companies taking advantage of advantageous situations (HUMAN NATURE!) but you don't accept not for profit companies taking advantage of the fact that people will gladly donate money to them
Because the whole point of an NPO is that they DO NOT take advantage of it. They are LEGALLY AND MORALLY OBLIGED to write a mission statement
Yes but they're not monks. Having a "mission" doesn't mean that you must live in poverty.
But it does mean not spending money on frivolities. By frivolities I mean anything and everything that isn't strictly necessary to carry out their mission (because that's what the law says NPOs must do).
How do you prove that something is not strictly necessary?
In court. Which is the main problem with any claims about legality without court case.
"Morally" is legally meaningless
Is it non-legally meaningless too? Or does it matter after all?
Heh, it matters when enough people are pissed off about their behaviour.
Wait, am I reading this right? It's 100% okay to do everything you want no matter how immoral it is, as long as most people don't complain?
"legally" I bet that they are in the clear.
Has anyone sued them for that or were they prosecuted? You're old enough to know that legality can only be determined for certain when someone gets sued or prosecuted. Even Wikipedia Foundation themselves don't know if everything they do is legal, and they have no way of knowing until someone sues or prosecutes them!
And you're old enough to know that you are innocent until proven guilty (in most Western countries anyway).
In court. Not in random chit chat on an online forum. Stop applying legal concepts to casual conversations.
It's not the same thing as legality, but for all intensive purpoises, it is, or at least it is 90% of the time (random figure).
It's nice you live in a country where this is true. In Poland, things are a bit more... nuanced.
I have yet to see proof that they are deliberately mismanaging money or misrepresenting their financial situation.
And you're not going to get one from me. I'm here only to straighten your bullshit statement that NPOs are under no obligation to be any more charitable than a regular business.
They are under no obligation to surrender donations though. If they were misrepresenting their financial situation or mismanaging money then you'd have an argument.
IT'S NOT MY ARGUMENT! I'm just replying to your quip about the double standards people apply to NPOs and regular businesses. Yes, there are double standards. For a good reason.
-
@admiral_p fun thought experiment: imagine if plaintiffs were required to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt before even filing the lawsuit.
-
@Gąska said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
@admiral_p said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
@Gąska said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
@admiral_p said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
@Gąska said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
@admiral_p said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
@boomzilla for some reason you accept companies taking advantage of advantageous situations (HUMAN NATURE!) but you don't accept not for profit companies taking advantage of the fact that people will gladly donate money to them
Because the whole point of an NPO is that they DO NOT take advantage of it. They are LEGALLY AND MORALLY OBLIGED to write a mission statement
Yes but they're not monks. Having a "mission" doesn't mean that you must live in poverty.
But it does mean not spending money on frivolities. By frivolities I mean anything and everything that isn't strictly necessary to carry out their mission (because that's what the law says NPOs must do).
How do you prove that something is not strictly necessary?
In court. Which is the main problem with any claims about legality without court case.
"Morally" is legally meaningless
Is it non-legally meaningless too? Or does it matter after all?
Heh, it matters when enough people are pissed off about their behaviour.
Wait, am I reading this right? It's 100% okay to do everything you want no matter how immoral it is, as long as most people don't complain?
Isn't it so in practice? Take, for example, adultery. It used to be immoral. Is it immoral today?
"legally" I bet that they are in the clear.
Has anyone sued them for that or were they prosecuted? You're old enough to know that legality can only be determined for certain when someone gets sued or prosecuted. Even Wikipedia Foundation themselves don't know if everything they do is legal, and they have no way of knowing until someone sues or prosecutes them!
And you're old enough to know that you are innocent until proven guilty (in most Western countries anyway).
In court. Not in random chit chat on an online forum. Stop applying legal concepts to casual conversations.
Of course. That's why I characterised the whingeing over here as butthurt badmouthing.
It's not the same thing as legality, but for all intensive purpoises, it is, or at least it is 90% of the time (random figure).
It's nice you live in a country where this is true. In Poland, things are a bit more... nuanced.
I have yet to see proof that they are deliberately mismanaging money or misrepresenting their financial situation.
And you're not going to get one from me. I'm here only to straighten your bullshit statement that NPOs are under no obligation to be any more charitable than a regular business.
They are under no obligation to surrender donations though. If they were misrepresenting their financial situation or mismanaging money then you'd have an argument.
IT'S NOT MY ARGUMENT! I'm just replying to your quip about the double standards people apply to NPOs and regular businesses. Yes, there are double standards. For a good reason.
The double standards are only from certain points of view. For good reason. My argument is your argument.
-
@Gąska civil lawsuits ≠ criminal trials. And anyway, the prosecutor has discretionary action in the US right? (It doesn't in Italy. There are pros and cons to both).
-
@admiral_p said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
@boomzilla if you've never said that, then they are possibly scraping by, or at least risk scraping by. Then the funding campaigns are fully justified? Who knows, maybe with a more low profile approach they might not get enough? Melius abundare quam deficere. Also, pecunia non olet.
If the fund raising campaign is "justified," then I probably would say that.
@admiral_p said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
@boomzilla said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
@admiral_p you're full of shit. I'm upset when for profit companies misrepresent things too.
So yours is an aesthetic peeve basically? It's OK when entities take advantage of their position (eg. banks, subprime crisis), it's not OK when their banners are 10M pixels while their office is in central San Francisco?
No. Take this bank nonsense and whargarbl it up your ass. That's irrelevant to this whole thing and is some kind of personal tick between you, levicki and Mason that probably needs professional help.
-
@levicki said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
@Carnage said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
Not really. You give them your money to handle. You could very well not do that if banks rub you the wrong way so much.
You can't do anything without banks nowadays. Gone are the days when you were receiving your salary as wads of cash from a teller in your company, and days when you could have used only cash everywhere. You must use banks if you want to live a normal life in civilization. Banks are a government sponsored protection racket.
Yes, and we like our indoor plumbing, too. Don't take loans you can't afford and if you think your bank is ripping you off then find another one. There are a lot of options, at least in the US.
-
@admiral_p said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
How do you prove that something is not strictly necessary?
Yeah, that's not a path I want to go down. As I've said, I just find their fund raising methods irritating given what I know about their finances and every campaign pushes me in the same direction.
-
@admiral_p said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
@Gąska said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
@admiral_p said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
@Gąska said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
@admiral_p said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
@Gąska said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
@admiral_p said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
@boomzilla for some reason you accept companies taking advantage of advantageous situations (HUMAN NATURE!) but you don't accept not for profit companies taking advantage of the fact that people will gladly donate money to them
Because the whole point of an NPO is that they DO NOT take advantage of it. They are LEGALLY AND MORALLY OBLIGED to write a mission statement
Yes but they're not monks. Having a "mission" doesn't mean that you must live in poverty.
But it does mean not spending money on frivolities. By frivolities I mean anything and everything that isn't strictly necessary to carry out their mission (because that's what the law says NPOs must do).
How do you prove that something is not strictly necessary?
In court. Which is the main problem with any claims about legality without court case.
"Morally" is legally meaningless
Is it non-legally meaningless too? Or does it matter after all?
Heh, it matters when enough people are pissed off about their behaviour.
Wait, am I reading this right? It's 100% okay to do everything you want no matter how immoral it is, as long as most people don't complain?
Isn't it so in practice? Take, for example, adultery. It used to be immoral. Is it immoral today?
Yes, it is. People not caring doesn't make it any more moral. Especially since most people still care about adultery.
The obvious exception is open relationships, but then it's not even adultery.
It's not the same thing as legality, but for all intensive purpoises, it is, or at least it is 90% of the time (random figure).
It's nice you live in a country where this is true. In Poland, things are a bit more... nuanced.
I have yet to see proof that they are deliberately mismanaging money or misrepresenting their financial situation.
And you're not going to get one from me. I'm here only to straighten your bullshit statement that NPOs are under no obligation to be any more charitable than a regular business.
They are under no obligation to surrender donations though. If they were misrepresenting their financial situation or mismanaging money then you'd have an argument.
IT'S NOT MY ARGUMENT! I'm just replying to your quip about the double standards people apply to NPOs and regular businesses. Yes, there are double standards. For a good reason.
The double standards are only from certain points of view. For good reason. My argument is your argument.
No, I'm pretty sure your argument isn't my argument. Otherwise you'd agree that this double standard applies always to every NPO without any limitations regardless of circumstances, and rightly so.
-
@admiral_p said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
@Gąska civil lawsuits ≠ criminal trials.
Criminal trials still require lawsuits to be filed. And anyway, you're the one who raised the "guilty until proven innocent" principle with regards to malfunctioning NPO, which is absolutely a civil case, not criminal.
-
@levicki said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
@Gąska said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
Criminal trials still require lawsuits to be filed.
Any trials also require evidence of wrongdoing in order to find someone guilty of something
You can read my posts! Cool!
-
@levicki said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
@Gąska said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
Criminal trials still require lawsuits to be filed.
Any trials also require evidence of wrongdoing in order to find someone guilty of something, which people here are not providing.
Yeah, the bank rants have been amusing that way.
-
@levicki this one certainly did, since you repeated it almost verbatim!
-
@levicki said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
@Gąska said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
@levicki this one certainly did, since you repeated it almost verbatim!
So you agree that there should be hard evidence of wrongdoing?
For sentencing? Certainly! For suing? Not so much. Even less for peanut gallery talks.
Where is your evidence for Wikimedia then?
Did you reach your daily quota on reading other people's posts? I even wrote it in all caps and everything.
-
@levicki said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
@Gąska Yes I read that you don't want to provide evidence and I see that you think you are entitled to baseless whining and badmouthing anyway.
No I'm not? Where do you see me badmouthing them?
-
It's impressive how much people can bitch and yell at each other about how Wiki spends their money, with not a single person actually looking up (inb4 YMBNH). It's not like Wikimedia Foundation accounts are hard to find: https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/financial-reports/
For 2017-2018 (which apparently is the last fully-audited year), see e.g. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/6/60/FY17-18_-_Independent_Auditors'_Report.pdf
I don't care enough about this to spend that much time actually reading it, but a few nuggets to feed the fire:
From their statement of activity (p3, millions USD). Revenue 100 (97% from donations). Expenses for hosting 2.3, which is almost exactly the same amount as "travel and conferences". What about the rest? Salaries, 39, of which we don't how many are related to hosting (as opposed to other more controversial activities -- although p13 allocates 29 of those to "programs" which is very generic but that is opposed to "general" and "fund-raising", so we know at least 10 is not spent on hosting). Awards and grants 14, the rest is small things. Although starting from the bottom of the list, hosting is the second smallest spending post of all. Overall, they have $20 millions left so even assuming that every expense is fully related to hosting, they still collect $20 millions more than what they need (and it's not just a one-off that year, it was the same the year before and they've built a reserve of about $100 millions so it must have been going this way for years!). p15 says they're paying 1.5/2 per year for their building in SF, which is close to what they're paying for hosting.
We shall now return to your regularly scheduled flame war.
-
@levicki
When did the conversation move to the government?
-
@levicki said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
I see that you think you are entitled to baseless whining and badmouthing anyway.
And you fulfill that entitlement with your bank posts. Thanks!
-
@remi said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
It's impressive how much people can bitch and yell at each other about how Wiki spends their money, with not a single person actually looking up (inb4 YMBNH). It's not like Wikimedia Foundation accounts are hard to find: https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/financial-reports/
For 2017-2018 (which apparently is the last fully-audited year), see e.g. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/6/60/FY17-18_-_Independent_Auditors'_Report.pdf
I don't care enough about this to spend that much time actually reading it, but a few nuggets to feed the fire:
From their statement of activity (p3, millions USD). Revenue 100 (97% from donations). Expenses for hosting 2.3, which is almost exactly the same amount as "travel and conferences". What about the rest? Salaries, 39, of which we don't how many are related to hosting (as opposed to other more controversial activities -- although p13 allocates 29 of those to "programs" which is very generic but that is opposed to "general" and "fund-raising", so we know at least 10 is not spent on hosting). Awards and grants 14, the rest is small things. Although starting from the bottom of the list, hosting is the second smallest spending post of all. Overall, they have $20 millions left so even assuming that every expense is fully related to hosting, they still collect $20 millions more than what they need (and it's not just a one-off that year, it was the same the year before and they've built a reserve of about $100 millions so it must have been going this way for years!). p15 says they're paying 1.5/2 per year for their building in SF, which is close to what they're paying for hosting.
We shall now return to your regularly scheduled flame war.
Probably greedy banks are stealing the rest.
-
@Gąska said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
What they're doing is in no way illegal, they're not running a scam
Not spending as much money as possible on their stated mission is the very definition of charity scam.
I’m almost entirely certain that 1) their written mission statement is broader than what you think it is (or think it should be), 2) they see what they are doing as furthering their mission (which is relevant because you have already
’d that only a court could declare it with more certainty than them), so what they are doing is covered under it.
-
@Gąska said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
@admiral_p fun thought experiment: imagine if plaintiffs were required to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt before even filing the lawsuit.
Well, in a lawsuit, there's no guilt, just liability... And the burden is not beyond a reasonable doubt for civil cases, it just has to be more likely than not... And a lawsuit without any basis will likely be dismissed before it makes it to a courtroom.
-
Maybe they should use some of the money to fix their search
-
@error said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
burden is not beyond a reasonable doubt for civil cases
This disparity can lead to some odd situations. Eg, OJ Simpson was found Not Guilty of murder yet liable for wrongful death.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
@HardwareGeek said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
They did forgive some loans. I don't know how many, but short sales typically involved forgiveness of the shortfall. (Which is at least part of why short sales took so long; banks were reluctant to approve them because they lost money on them.)
OK, this is a part I don't get. How does that work, when the bank no longer owns the loan because they turned around and sold it off to a third party?
When a bank sells your loan to another bank you will get notified about it so you know to whom to make your payments. It doesn't happen without you knowing.
-
@levicki said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
Unlike the spending of C-suite execs in big corporations, and bankers, and Wall Street drones, and Manhattan inhabitants, and Las Vegas visitors, and all celebrities, and big name politicians, and oil magnates, and Arabian princes, and other world's assorted billionaires?
@levicki said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
What you said here means that you must be very upset with Microsoft.
-
@Gąska said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
@admiral_p said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
@boomzilla for some reason you accept companies taking advantage of advantageous situations (HUMAN NATURE!) but you don't accept not for profit companies taking advantage of the fact that people will gladly donate money to them
Because the whole point of an NPO is that they DO NOT take advantage of it.
Wat.
No. They can't redistribute profits to the owners. Charities have some additional restrictions — what they can do with the money is nominally limited to spending on things that support missions in specific areas, plus there are severe restrictions on how the board is structured and remunerated — but the interpretation of what that actually means is pretty broad. Which is mostly a good thing. (Charities are allowed to buy office supplies, even though that purchase may support a commercial company! Cue the
!)General non-profit companies have far fewer restrictions, but don't gain much in the way of tax benefits. (There are cases where that is the right corporate structure, FWIW, and the lower regulation regime is nice too.)
They are LEGALLY AND MORALLY OBLIGED to write a mission statement and internal regulations that SPECIFICALLY PROHIBIT this kind of behavior and they MUST stick to it. That's the cost of those sweet sweet tax cuts NPOs receive. If they don't like these rules, they should've started a regular company.
Things are more complicated than that. I sometimes wish I didn't know quite so much about it...
-
@hungrier said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
Maybe they should use some of the money to fix their search
I thought that's what google is for... It's how I always get there!
-
@CodeJunkie said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
When a bank sells your loan to another bank you will get notified about it so you know to whom to make your payments. It doesn't happen without you knowing.
Well, unless the other bank screws up and "forgets" to tell you. You know, so they can get some extra late fees....
-
@dkf said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
@Gąska said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
@admiral_p said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
@boomzilla for some reason you accept companies taking advantage of advantageous situations (HUMAN NATURE!) but you don't accept not for profit companies taking advantage of the fact that people will gladly donate money to them
Because the whole point of an NPO is that they DO NOT take advantage of it.
Wat.
No. They can't redistribute profits to the owners. Charities have some additional restrictions — what they can do with the money is nominally limited to spending on things that support missions in specific areas, plus there are severe restrictions on how the board is structured and remunerated — but the interpretation of what that actually means is pretty broad. Which is mostly a good thing. (Charities are allowed to buy office supplies, even though that purchase may support a commercial company! Cue the
!)
Must be regional thing. In Poland, they actually are legally obliged to stick to their mission and do nothing else. Although they're free to do any supporting tasks that are related to carrying through with their mission.
-
@dcon said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
@CodeJunkie said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
When a bank sells your loan to another bank you will get notified about it so you know to whom to make your payments. It doesn't happen without you knowing.
Well, unless the other bank screws up and "forgets" to tell you. You know, so they can get some extra late fees....
There are actually legal provisions that make that impractical. For instance, you are legally allowed to pay the old servicer (which may or may not be different from the owner, but it's the important party from the homeowner's perspective) up to 60 days after the transfer, and the old servicer is required to send you a notice 15 days before the transfer and the new servicer is required to send you a notice 15 days after the transfer. During that 60 day period, they can't charge late fees or report delinquencies/late payments to the credit bureaus.
And it's pretty darn hard to miss this fact unless you're still sending paper checks--you have to log into a different portal to make your payments, have to re-enter your bank information, etc.
And if they don't inform you, you have a legal right to challenge any penalties (and they're pretty good about this, because penalties make it harder for that servicer to get the fat government service contracts for the GSEs).
-
-
@dkf said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
No. They can't redistribute profits to the owners. Charities have some additional restrictions — what they can do with the money is nominally limited to spending on things that support missions in specific areas, plus there are severe restrictions on how the board is structured and remunerated — but the interpretation of what that actually means is pretty broad. Which is mostly a good thing. (Charities are allowed to buy office supplies, even though that purchase may support a commercial company! Cue the
!)Over here, they also have the restriction that if the donation is specifically stated to be for a certain purpose (say, you donate to the Red Cross but say it's for "Tsunami Disaster Care") then those funds are only allowed to be used for that specific purpose.
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
And it's pretty darn hard to miss this fact unless you're still sending paper checks--you have to log into a different portal to make your payments, have to re-enter your bank information, etc.
Eh...I'm not sure how it gets paid, exactly, but we have a recurring thing set up with our bank telling them to pay the mortgage company. Mostly it just happens without much interaction from us.
-
@Deadfast said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
@levicki said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
On the other hand, you have banks who outright admit they are raping your ass
Please stop with this whataboutist nonsense. By that line of reasoning we could shut down this entire website because why complain about minor stuff like terrible code when there are children starving in Africa.
I'm politically pretty anti-corporate and I'm struggling to understand what he's saying here.
Sure, there are bad lenders. Payday loans and such. And there's even bad banks - Wells Fargo comes to mind as one. But like... Sure most banks make one hell of a profit but it's not like some kind of highway robbery. On the list of "Immoral Corporations", your average bank is way down there.
If you wanna ream them for something, at least ream them for something true, like their abysmal track record on infosec.
-
@levicki said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
No you have no one to complain to.
In theory, one could complain to a relevant politician who would have great fun showing that they're a man of the people by clamping down on bad practices by banks. In theory. In practice, too often that's a lolnope due to intense
briberylobbying.
-
@levicki said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
For example, banks here take as much as a 5% cut from each transaction merchant processes through a PoS terminal using customer's credit/debit card.
Have you signed up yet?
https://what.thedailywtf.com/topic/25305/initiative-q-money-from-nowhere
-
@levicki said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
@boomzilla Is what you linked supposed to mean something? Because I don't follow.
Yes, if you don't follow the link then I wouldn't expect you to understand it.
One of the things those guys talk (talked? are they even still around?) about was payment processing.
-
@levicki said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
if you yourself had a low income
I do. Not everyone on this forum is a software developer by trade.
/thread
-
@levicki said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
Sadly most software developers seem to live in a bubble, shielded from the many cruelties of everyday life inflicted on other less fortunate individuals.
This is exactly what is meant when people talk about "privilege." I'm lucky to be on the
whiteright side of the bubble, and I am cognizant of that.
-
@levicki said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
@boomzilla said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
One of the things those guys talk (talked? are they even still around?) about was payment processing.
I hope you didn't expect me to read the whole thread just to (maybe?) figure that out?
I just made a quick joke. I didn't expect some kind of Spanish Inquisition!
I still don't understand your point though, are you agreeing or disagreeing with me on those processing fees?
I don't know. Was there something to agree or disagree about?
-
@boomzilla said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
I didn't expect some kind of Spanish Inquisition!
(You set 'em up, I knock 'em down.)
-
@levicki said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
So, are you saying that in your experience you are getting the best possible deals everywhere just like the rich people, because of your low income? Or it might be the other way around?
What? No. No I'm not.
-
@dkf Nobody expects the iOS ringtone?
Red herring - Wikipedia
etcetc.
