SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Happy New Year!
As the final hours of 2021 here's wishing everyone a Happy New Year!
In light of the holiday, I am inviting the editorial staff to post stories on a weekend/holiday schedule. Thank you for all your hard work in 2021. Here's wishing for a better year to come! Enjoy!
We did it! [*]
([*] I think).
Current Status:
Thanks to a VERY generous subscription of nearly $1,000, we reached our fundraising goal for the second half of the year THANK YOU!: $4,132.81 on a goal of $3,500.00 (all amounts are estimates):
mysql> SELECT SUM(payment_net) AS Net, 100.0 * SUM(payment_net) / 3500.00 AS GoalPercent, MAX(ts), MAX(spid), NOW() FROM subscribe_payments WHERE ts > '2021-06-30' ;
+---------+-------------+---------------------+-----------+---------------------+
| Net | GoalPercent | MAX(ts) | MAX(spid) | NOW() |
+---------+-------------+---------------------+-----------+---------------------+
| 4132.81 | 118.0802857 | 2021-12-30 17:36:36 | 1744 | 2021-12-30 23:45:49 |
+---------+-------------+---------------------+-----------+---------------------+
1 row in set (0.00 sec)mysql>
And for those of you interested in the details:
mysql> SELECT spid, ts, payment_gross, payment_net, payment_type FROM subscribe_payments WHERE ts > '2021-12-29 22:06:03' AND payment_gross > 0 ORDER BY ts ;
+------+---------------------+---------------+-------------+--------------+
| spid | ts | payment_gross | payment_net | payment_type |
+------+---------------------+---------------+-------------+--------------+
| 1728 | 2021-12-29 23:16:21 | 20.00 | 18.81 | user |
| 1729 | 2021-12-30 00:15:05 | 100.00 | 96.80 | user |
| 1730 | 2021-12-30 01:08:02 | 20.00 | 19.12 | user |
| 1731 | 2021-12-30 01:13:58 | 30.00 | 28.01 | user |
| 1732 | 2021-12-30 01:45:50 | 50.00 | 48.25 | user |
| 1733 | 2021-12-30 02:35:54 | 40.00 | 38.54 | user |
| 1734 | 2021-12-30 03:12:48 | 20.00 | 18.81 | user |
| 1735 | 2021-12-30 04:24:07 | 924.43 | 897.32 | user |
| 1736 | 2021-12-30 07:05:37 | 20.00 | 18.51 | user |
| 1737 | 2021-12-30 07:50:05 | 20.00 | 18.51 | gift |
| 1738 | 2021-12-30 09:23:14 | 20.00 | 19.12 | gift |
| 1739 | 2021-12-30 12:22:42 | 20.00 | 18.51 | user |
| 1740 | 2021-12-30 12:24:24 | 20.00 | 18.81 | user |
| 1741 | 2021-12-30 13:59:52 | 40.00 | 38.11 | user |
| 1742 | 2021-12-30 17:33:36 | 20.00 | 19.12 | gift |
| 1743 | 2021-12-30 17:35:13 | 20.00 | 19.12 | gift |
| 1744 | 2021-12-30 17:36:36 | 20.00 | 19.12 | gift |
+------+---------------------+---------------+-------------+--------------+
17 rows in set (0.00 sec)mysql>
That's great news! So why the equivocation?
Looking Closer:
Actually, it's more of a stepping back to look at things over the course of the entire year:
mysql> SELECT SUM(payment_gross) AS Gross, SUM(payment_net) AS Net, ts, max(spid) AS SPID FROM subscribe_payments WHERE ts > '2020-12-31' ;
+---------+---------+---------------------+------+
| Gross | Net | ts | SPID |
+---------+---------+---------------------+------+
| 6916.61 | 6611.75 | 2020-12-31 21:47:25 | 1744 |
+---------+---------+---------------------+------+
1 row in set (0.00 sec)mysql>
The fundraising goal for the first half of the year was also $3,500.00. So... (2 x $3,500.00) is $7,000.00 but we have a total of... $6,916.61?
The Crash:
And then I remembered. Early this year we had a server (fluorine) crash. We had backups (yay!), but they were borken (Boo! Hiss!). We lost over a day's worth of activity, including a number of subscriptions. I *was* able to manually reconstruct people's subscriptions (time) based on information displayed on a window I just happened to have open at the time. But that was in a table separate from what is used to generate these numbers. After 3 days' effort, I'd patched things up as well as I could. Thankfully the official numbers (on which income and taxes are calculated) are kept on a completely separate server. Whew! One that I DO NOT have access. I'd concluded that we'll just have to sort things out at the end of the year. And that time has draw nigh.
tl;dr:
We're probably all set for the year, but there is also the matter that (unknown to me) we had previously been running at a deficit for a couple years. So anything additional you can contribute will go to replenish our funding base. (NCommander and Matt_ each put up $5,000.00 of their own money that to get us started.)
(Score: 3, Touché) by pkrasimirov on Friday December 31 2021, @03:09PM (8 children)
Hmm. Conspiracy theory intensifies.
(Score: 3, Funny) by martyb on Friday December 31 2021, @04:14PM (7 children)
Great Catch!
/me claims last-of-sleep
I think it's fixed, now. (I hope!) Thank You!
Wit is intellect, dancing.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Freeman on Friday December 31 2021, @04:42PM
Hopefully, not the last time you'll sleep. But, a lack of sleep sure can make functioning tough!
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by kazzie on Friday December 31 2021, @06:10PM (5 children)
It's now reading $6611.75 for me.
Chargebacks, or are there further gremlins remaining?
(Score: 3, Touché) by martyb on Friday December 31 2021, @08:54PM (4 children)
Nothing so nefarious! I (previously) coped the gross income instead of the net. IOW, I copied the wrong value over.
Wit is intellect, dancing.
(Score: 2) by pkrasimirov on Friday December 31 2021, @09:15PM (1 child)
Thank you for what you are doing. I wish you and all the editors a happy new 2022. Stay healthy!
(Score: 2) by martyb on Thursday January 06 2022, @10:26PM
Wit is intellect, dancing.
(Score: 2) by mrpg on Saturday January 01 2022, @02:34AM (1 child)
I don't trust systemd.
(Score: 3, Funny) by DECbot on Saturday January 01 2022, @07:05AM
Don't feel bad about it, it's mutual. By design systemd doesn't trust you too.
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 01 2022, @04:07PM (31 children)
OTOH running at a deficit and burning through investor capital is the current Internet business model, so there's that I guess.
1Q2021 last minute donations. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by nostyle on Saturday January 01 2022, @05:25PM (29 children)
The funding model here doesn't seem to be that different from that of other charitably supported endeavors - such as PBS and NPR and any one of a multitude of religious media-ministries. I think that the periodic fundraising efforts are necessary because, while people are happy to support these endeavors, they tend not to want to part with their dollars until it is absolutely necessary. I don't think that is so unwise,
In fact, I would guess that there are at least a dozen people frequenting this site who are wealthy enough to fund the entire budget if they so chose. Wisdom for them, however, is to let the rank-and-file users do their part first to demonstrate how much support the public has for the endeavor, then augment their contributions as a deadline approaches.
As far as repaying the original investors, a payment schedule might be factored into the budget and included in the fundraising goals - if those folks are serious about recovering their principal and unmoved to write off the debt.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 02 2022, @09:39AM (28 children)
At least PBS and NPR plaster the name of their big donors everywhere to allow proper transparency. We cannot even get an accurate listing of who actually owns and runs the place.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 02 2022, @04:33PM
The public announcement of (big) donors' names is a fund-raising ploy employed by charities - hardly different from offering paid advertising. It is attractive to ruthless capitalists who find themselves in need of positive PR.
Per the Qur'an, there is still goodness in donations made to be seen by the public, but anonymous alms are the ones that can possibly blot out one's past sins.
YMMV
As far as who "owns" and "runs" a media concern, that can typically be discerned easily by noticing any editorial bias.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday January 02 2022, @04:49PM (26 children)
Why is this supposed to be a problem? Do you have an actual need for this information?
I note that SN has pretty stringent policies in place to protect the privacy and identity of its posters, including such things as not keeping IP information and the use of TOR. It's thus very consistent to similarly protect the privacy and identity of its donors.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 02 2022, @06:01PM (1 child)
Since this is incorporated as a five-oh-whatever-C organization (or whatever the hell its called), isn't that information publicly avalable anyway for anyone who cares?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday January 02 2022, @07:57PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 03 2022, @12:47AM (23 children)
That is an awful lot of trust you have in unknown individuals. But worse than the lack of information is the bad information you base the rest on.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday January 03 2022, @04:58AM (22 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 03 2022, @06:27AM (21 children)
Quantity ≠ Quality
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday January 03 2022, @06:29PM (20 children)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday January 03 2022, @06:29PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 04 2022, @03:28AM (18 children)
You fail here. Nobody said they did.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 04 2022, @09:28AM (17 children)
[...]
As you can now see, an AC did.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 04 2022, @09:16PM (16 children)
Context is king. Nice of you to selectively leave it out. The fail is still khallow's.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 04 2022, @09:22PM (15 children)
And I showed the context.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 05 2022, @03:33AM (14 children)
Then he selectively leaves it out again. Can't teach an old dog that doesn't want to learn.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 05 2022, @04:44AM (13 children)
So much on the internet would be better, if people made coherent, sufficiently detailed arguments rather than snide allusions that could mean anything. But here's what I had to work with:
That's it. Five shitposts. There's no context, just endless bluster.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 05 2022, @08:32AM (12 children)
Then he does it again! You can't make this stuff up folks.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 05 2022, @12:45PM (11 children)
You just did. And I doubt anyone thinks it was hard.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 06 2022, @02:27AM (10 children)
Here is this better.
Nope, not a one.
Nope, nothing but the truth.
Nope, pretty hard to do something you didn't do.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 06 2022, @03:10AM (9 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 07 2022, @02:47AM (8 children)
Did you get lost? That will happen when you don't pay attention. Try reading the comment thread again. Diagramming might help you follow the connections better.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 07 2022, @04:33AM (7 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 09 2022, @05:24AM (6 children)
You don't want to pay the game you started? Too bad. Maybe next time you can learn how discussions work. But revealing the game you play so obviously was good too.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday January 10 2022, @07:29AM (5 children)
My point from way back when remains. There was some phony concern about who was funding SN and vague empty assertions about trust were made. I accurately pointed out that there was no serious trust placed in SN nor high expectations about SN's quality or quantity that we were funding. The discussion hasn't progressed beyond that due to your (or perhaps other ACs' games).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 11 2022, @07:39AM (4 children)
You are still here! And to think I took you seriously when you said you were done. You might just redeem yourself yet. Try rereading your last paragraph one more time, then the discussion, then your last paragraph. Maybe even alternate a few more times just for good measure. You seem to almost be there. Just a little more effort and you too can put two and three together to get five instead of getting twenty three then complaining math doesn't make sense.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 11 2022, @01:57PM (3 children)
We're up to ten such posts BTW. Part of the reason I'm still posting, is I wonder if there's actually any fire under all that smoke. Legitimate concerns or points get somewhere with me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 12 2022, @10:58PM (2 children)
I did say it. You are making clear you cannot or will not understand. You've gotten so close and are yet so far. Your counting only enumerates your own ineptitude at comprehension.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 19 2022, @04:03PM (1 child)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 21 2022, @10:17AM
I can. The trouble seems to be your ability to follow it. Right behind the ability to come up with a response in less than a week.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday January 02 2022, @04:43PM
Given that these are donations, it's not a business model in the first place. And if they can keep doing that year after year, then it'll be sustainable whether or not you think it is.