Can't remember the last time I bought a pre-built computer (well over 30 years ago) where the Windows tax would apply.
TBH, even my laptops - where it might apply by default - have been work laptops that they've let me keep after I left. But for desktops: are there many typical users here who buy pre-built machines where this happens?
You're extraordinarily angry in both your comments to me. It baffles me as to why.
Perhaps take a moment to read the things I've said and the things you're assuming I meant, and then compare the two.
It's possible for companies to give money to charity (nobody has suggested otherwise) and gain significant benefit for themselves in doing so. Both parties win, and done within local laws.
Still worth knowing. Which is why your verbose rant is baffling.
I think it comes down to who the tax authority sees as being the source of the funds. It seems in the UK, at least, the payer to the charity is the donor and, if that donor is a company, they get a corporate tax break for it.
The charity gets their money either way (otherwise would be fraud), but the company isn't necessarily doing it out of the goodness of their heart: their tax bill goes down as a direct result.
Personally, I think the recipient charity getting the benefit of all those rounding up transactions is a good thing overall. But my original comment was about not allowing yourself to believe a comfortable lie: it's business, not philanthropy. Or perhaps, philanthropy in the typical rich benefactor style of giving - it's still a mutually beneficial transaction.
This is the way.
Love > Tradition. Even for performative roles in modern life.
Can't remember the last time I bought a pre-built computer (well over 30 years ago) where the Windows tax would apply.
TBH, even my laptops - where it might apply by default - have been work laptops that they've let me keep after I left. But for desktops: are there many typical users here who buy pre-built machines where this happens?
This. Everything is this.
Nothing. OP is imagining an idiot for imaginary internet points.
OK cool, thanks. What I saw in demos a week or so ago seemed "fuck those screen reader folks". Would be good if it's not as bad as that.
[citation needed]
Gonna need more than a confident declaration to convince people potentially impacted by this. Provide it... or shut up.
Have to say it: an outraged Myne is the perfect thumbnail image for this headline. šš»
Best headline about this so far.
I wasn't commenting on validity, just OP's intent.
No doubt it works for some. It doesn't for me... most of the time. Sometimes it's fine, though.
I think you've missed the point OP was making.
It was less about how to stop seeing recommendations, but more about why tag-based recommendations exist when they're so ineffective.
This is part of the plot/shtick to the anime Overlord. š
And this is why some people should be denied power. Not liking/wanting something for oneself is fine. You do you, etc.
Wishing to forbid it to others is unconscionable.
"Users question value of Spez*." FTFY.
*Substitute the former r/jailbait mod for any other sociopath CxO who will do/say anything for a shareholder-blessed bonus.
Yet but also: don't blink too quickly...
You're extraordinarily angry in both your comments to me. It baffles me as to why.
Perhaps take a moment to read the things I've said and the things you're assuming I meant, and then compare the two.
It's possible for companies to give money to charity (nobody has suggested otherwise) and gain significant benefit for themselves in doing so. Both parties win, and done within local laws.
Still worth knowing. Which is why your verbose rant is baffling.
I think it comes down to who the tax authority sees as being the source of the funds. It seems in the UK, at least, the payer to the charity is the donor and, if that donor is a company, they get a corporate tax break for it.
The charity gets their money either way (otherwise would be fraud), but the company isn't necessarily doing it out of the goodness of their heart: their tax bill goes down as a direct result.
Personally, I think the recipient charity getting the benefit of all those rounding up transactions is a good thing overall. But my original comment was about not allowing yourself to believe a comfortable lie: it's business, not philanthropy. Or perhaps, philanthropy in the typical rich benefactor style of giving - it's still a mutually beneficial transaction.
Picking the UK at random, this took 10 seconds to find so I doubt you tried to find anything:
It also allows the company to play PR games with how much "they" give to charity.
...for your jurisdiction.
Welcome to the international internet.
"Would you like to help our megacorp reduce its tax bill, pweeze?" is what they're really asking. Absurd.
Edit: Differs between countries and relevant legislations (having to explain internet 101 in 2026!?).
I read it more like a Scooby-Doo unmasking, "And I would've gotten away with it, too, if it weren't for you pesky kids!" š