that point is nearly impossible to define

As with any law, there will undoubtedly be cases in which it is difficult to discern whether or not a law has been broken, but courts decide on innocence or guilt in such cases every day. A jury would be asked to decide whether a a reasonable third party is likely to conclude on the balance of probabilities that the image depicts a person who is under 18.

Whether or not the depicted person is real or imagined is not relevant in many / most jurisdictions.

I was gonna say. the phrase “double income no kids” arose in the 90s when “single income + kids” was a possibility.

Well he’s a podcaster… and here we are talking about him. I’m certain that his numbers will enjoy a bump.

Why does he feel that it’s relevant here? I don’t really follow that part.

Yeah good old fashioned sunlight is what this needs.

Goodness me. One of us is certainly getting defensive. There’s not much point continuing this. Feel free to have the last word while continuing to assume anyone with a better understanding than you is a liar.

Sorry mate you’re kind of embarrassing yourself a little bit here.

Of course the CEO equivalent exists in government. It’s just a management position. Equivalent services will need equivalent management.

Do you realize how little a CEO does?

I’ve sat on hiring committees for CEO’s. Refining their job descriptions and interviewing candidates. I know exactly what CEO’s of non-profits and charities do. I suspect that you do not.

Do you realize how little the actual money donated to an organization trickles down to the cause?

Perhaps you didn’t read my comment. I’ve been a treasurer for a number of medium size charities. I know exactly how much money is needed to support the charities objectives.

In recent years grant funding for charities has been extraordinarily difficult to obtain. Often it’s not indexed. Where grant funding is not indexed for a number of years, it becomes impossible to maintain the same services because wages and other costs are always getting more expensive. I’ve had to have that very difficult conversation with social workers - that their hours need to be reduced and as a result their client numbers will be cut. It’s a ridiculous absurdity to suggest that volunteers like myself would be taking those measures without first seeking to maximise the efficiency of the entire organisation.

Do you realize that there are multiple charities for the same thing, which just means more and more waste?

For example?

In fact in pretty much every instance of a modern government taking over a service, it becomes cheaper and more efficient. That’s why many governments run utilities, and healthcare.

You’re talking about public vs private institutions. That just doesn’t make any sense applied to charities because they’re already public institutions.

Look I’m not saying your service is useless, but I am saying it would be more efficient elsewhere.

Sorry mate, this is just an absurd thought bubble borne of naivety. Get involved in a charity and you’ll understand why it exists. Until then maybe just start with the assumption that the people who are involved have a better understanding of it’s context and it’s objectives and how best to serve those objectives than you do. It’s incredible arrogant to suppose that entire organisations ought not to exist because the people involved just haven’t realised how inefficient they are. Seriously, pull your head out of your ass.

A refuge isn’t really a shelter for people who are “homeless”.

How would a government provide temporary accommodation to a 12 year old who is at risk of abuse?

The need for this type of refuge isn’t the product of a shitty housing market.

Note also, most of the funding comes from government agencies.

I’ve been involved as a treasurer for a number of “medium” charities in Australia. Most recently one providing free legal services to the disadvantaged, and another running a refuge for homeless youth.

As an aside, bear in mind that I as a treasurer as well as the entire board are volunteers - well qualified and experienced professionals donating their time to ensure that the organisation is run efficiently and is maximising the benefit to the community.

Your comments really grind my gears. They’re born of shallow social media type thinking. These falsehoods are commonly used as a “reason” why one ought not to donate to charities.

Certainly there are overpaid CEOs, but these are a minority. Recently the charity running the refuge got a new CEO. He had been a police superintendent. He took a pay cut of about two thirds in order to be our CEO. He said that he had spent most of his career locking people up, and wanted to spend the last part of his career changing kids trajectories before they got involved with the law.

Imagine saying that this organisation would be more efficient of it were subsumed by the government, so the CEO-equivalent could be paid 3x as much.

do donations need to be truthful in plain terms of how the funds are used ?

I think in 2023 parlance the claim is probably plain enough to be “truthful”.

Giving gold supports the contributors you love

It’s pretty well established that receiving gold on reddit is perks like… a gold star or something, rather than actual real gold.

Auto cookie delete isn’t really necessary since total cookie protection.

Probably because the lack of google apps is the most noticeable difference to stock android?

Wars are won with logistics. What resupply infrastructure do these guys have in place?

Do the states have aircraft carriers?

I don’t know much about such things but I wonder whether it’s possible in any meaningful way.

If there’s a split they don’t just divvy up the toys and have at it.

One side might have a few things on wheels and tracks, but can they call in an air strike? Will they even have GPS?

Sure mate. Are you the lazy comment po-po? You must be busy.

The phrase “baseless assumptions” does not mean that no base was provided. It means that the purported base is inadequate to support a causal likelihood that the assumptions are true.

Besides which, your argument is one of semantics, which you’re welcome to.

“This person can’t have been abused because they signed a contract”

Baseless assumptions.

Some of the best / most nuanced medical advice I’ve ever received is from online forums.

I think what you really mean is “don’t risk your life on the basis of advice from strangers”.

Note that all the other answers ITT say “yes anything that elevates your HR is dangerous”, so OP knows not to play that type of game before his next appointment with his cardiologist, which could be weeks or months away.

Had they not asked, they wouldn’t know to avoid that activity.