While the numbers are interesting, they aren't that interesting. This guy clearly just has a problem with the fact that some of the companies lean left of center. I don't see that as a problem,...
While the numbers are interesting, they aren't that interesting.
This guy clearly just has a problem with the fact that some of the companies lean left of center. I don't see that as a problem, because those numbers are tiny for corporations.
Seriously, he is upset about $30k in one of those lines and assumes it is a shell company because they don't have a website. Do they have an office? If so, a contract for $30k to some local company for some random job in the office is not unreasonable. Our company pays significantly more than that to a lawn are company every year and they don't have a website either.
He claims toward the end that
While The Lunduke Journal does not like to delve too deeply into the Political Woods (tm),
Most of the article is about the political leanings of where the money went, not the actual monetary amounts. Oddly he doesn't delve into the political stances of UpWork, Bee Agency, Torchwood, or any of their leadership despite them getting significantly more from Mozilla.
As for the "relying solely on one contributor" issue, it is no secret that Google has been and will continue to donate a ton of money to them because it is an insurance policy against monopoly laws. That is not something to criticize the CEO about, since I suspect that there is a written document involved explaining how much they can expect from Alphabet every year and it isn't just hopes and prayers.
This seems like a pretty obvious assumption to make. If you'd want to jump in on the conspiracy route, I guess you could theorize that Google and Mozilla have some backdoor deal to try not to grow...
As for the "relying solely on one contributor" issue, it is no secret that Google has been and will continue to donate a ton of money to them because it is an insurance policy against monopoly laws. That is not something to criticize the CEO about, since I suspect that there is a written document involved explaining how much they can expect from Alphabet every year and it isn't just hopes and prayers.
This seems like a pretty obvious assumption to make. If you'd want to jump in on the conspiracy route, I guess you could theorize that Google and Mozilla have some backdoor deal to try not to grow Mozilla's market share (and that's why the browser development budget has been shrinking).
But the article is mostly just questions that probably have answers already from someone smarter than me.
He's a developer and has held executive technology position before. He would know contract developers incorporate. There won't be a business presence online. Except for their personal presence...
He's a developer and has held executive technology position before. He would know contract developers incorporate. There won't be a business presence online. Except for their personal presence like LinkedIn and stuff.
While the numbers are interesting, they aren't that interesting.
This guy clearly just has a problem with the fact that some of the companies lean left of center. I don't see that as a problem, because those numbers are tiny for corporations.
Seriously, he is upset about $30k in one of those lines and assumes it is a shell company because they don't have a website. Do they have an office? If so, a contract for $30k to some local company for some random job in the office is not unreasonable. Our company pays significantly more than that to a lawn are company every year and they don't have a website either.
He claims toward the end that
Most of the article is about the political leanings of where the money went, not the actual monetary amounts. Oddly he doesn't delve into the political stances of UpWork, Bee Agency, Torchwood, or any of their leadership despite them getting significantly more from Mozilla.
As for the "relying solely on one contributor" issue, it is no secret that Google has been and will continue to donate a ton of money to them because it is an insurance policy against monopoly laws. That is not something to criticize the CEO about, since I suspect that there is a written document involved explaining how much they can expect from Alphabet every year and it isn't just hopes and prayers.
This seems like a pretty obvious assumption to make. If you'd want to jump in on the conspiracy route, I guess you could theorize that Google and Mozilla have some backdoor deal to try not to grow Mozilla's market share (and that's why the browser development budget has been shrinking).
But the article is mostly just questions that probably have answers already from someone smarter than me.
He's a developer and has held executive technology position before. He would know contract developers incorporate. There won't be a business presence online. Except for their personal presence like LinkedIn and stuff.