I've been working on Newsletterss, a newsletter reader for web, iOS and Android. I'm making about $2k/m with about 30% of that going to ads and infrastructure costs.
Is there a way to submit my newsletter to your database of newsletters? I run a curated gaming content newsletter(https://www.thegamingpub.com/) and being part of those databases it's what help people find my newsletter.
I just came back from 2 months in Colombia with my wife and a 3 year old. You can definitely live off 1k USD in an intermediate city (not Bogota) with a very high living standards compared to the average colombian.
Medellin would be my recommendation, very safe, unbeatable weather, access to high speed internet, a trendy startup culture and decent level of English-speaking people, non-stop daily flights to major US cities and same time zone as the US.
I don't know about _very_ safe but it certainly isn't how it used to be. Let's be real, you're in Latin America. It is safer than most Americans would think? Yes, but saying very safe is a bit of a stretch.
Source: I lived in Medellin and spent years living in Latin America.
Honest question, how is lobbying different from bribery? Lobbyists go to Washington, spend fortunes on taking lawmakers to fancy dinners and then get away with what they want. Maybe I don't understand the process and am oversimplifying it, but that's how I see it.
I'll flip the question around...
How is lobbying different than random voter talking to their representative in person?
It isn't really - a lobbyist is just exercising the free speech available to all individuals - they just happen to be doing it on behalf of a group of individuals.
I'm purposefully ignoring the whole "corporations are people" aspect because that's a different discussion. But, what you seem to be arguing is that I cannot gather with my neighbors, select a person from the group, and send them to DC to talk to our Congressperson about whatever topic interests us. Instead, we all have to go individually?
Edit - I actually do find the current lobbying situation to be problematic, but it mostly relates to campaign donations. It's not as simple as lobbying (by itself) is bad.
Something I don’t see anyone else talking about: power. They don’t just come in and offer you a fat campaign contribution check on behalf of those they represent while strongly encouraging you to vote a certain way on that one bill that would really move the needle for them. They’re also offering executive / board positions in the companies they represent and related entities. Do your own research on EO 13770 and how that whole deal works, but it’s a lot more networking / relationship building than just a free lunch.
I'm free to donate directly to a campaign.
I'm also free to pool my resources with my neighbors and donate as a block.
Like I said (in the edit), the problem is campaign financing, not lobbying. The two are related in the US, but we can probably fix financing without impeding free speech.
I don't know if you're confusing 'lobbying' with 'bribing'? Lobbying doesn't have to involve money. It just means talking to people and trying to persuade them to your point of view, which isn't inherently dishonest or problematic.
> lobbying + firehosing campaign cash = federal power on demand
Right... but only one side of that operation is the problem!
It's like saying 'a glass of milk + cyanide capsule = death' and blaming the glass of milk!
Lobbying is a neccesary and healthy part of a functioning democracy. Do you want decisions about you and your life taken with no input from you apart from voting once every few years?
How often has a single (non-rich) constituents money been the cause of policy change?
This is comparing a gun to a nuke. Yes, you could kill just as many people with a gun, but the nuke is hyper efficient at the job. They're not the same.
Lobbyists may be akin to a policy nuke. They have an arsenal of tools from influence, to money, to unethical and sometimes illegal behavior. Their positions have become so effective that it drowns out most others.
edit: Another way to think about it is that Lobbyists have changed, i think, from the voice of a group of people to a voice instead of a group of people. Leaving many people voiceless in the face of insane capital and influence.
Another way to think about it is that Lobbyists have changed, i think, from the voice of a group of people to a voice instead of a group of people. Leaving many people voiceless in the face of insane capital and influence.
I'm not convinced this is true. If a lobbyist is not speaking on behalf of people, who are they speaking for? After all, corporations are just legal entities composed of people - with stockholders/owners, a BoD, employees, and customers.
The simple act of Joe Lobbyist meeting Congresswoman Schmidt for a coffee and chat about some topic isn't a problem. The problem is that with that cup of coffee comes an implied donation on behalf of the people Joe represents. The problem is campaign finance, not talking to our representatives.
A corporation benefits a few, is wealthy, and controls the means of production. They can make material threats and promises that ordinary people cannot by virtue of owning little except their labor.
A corporation benefits all of its owners (and hopefully its employees too, though that's not a given, sadly). In the case of Apple or Dow or Boeing, that's millions of people.
Ordinary people are free to combine their voice via unions or their own lobbyists.
Communicating with your representatives is protected speech. The problem is campaign finance.
Unfortunately, millions of people is still less than 4% of the US population generously.
Employees are a cost center. The idea is to get as much as possible for as low a cost as possible. That's business and why employees can only win if they band together because they'd like to get as much as possible for as little work as possible. Those are diametrically opposed interests. You can change that equation a lot if the employees are the owners.
Do you have your senator's personal cell phone number? Does your senator recognize you by face? Will he remember whatever question you're talking about even if you secure a f2f meeting?
The lobbyist, who used to be that senator's chief of staff definitely does......
The lobbyist is taking the representative out to fancy dinners, golf courses, family vacations. It just so happens that they’ve known each other for years.
There's also the implication that at election time their clients will help fundraise. It's a lot easier to fundraise from rich people at thousands per pop than $20 or less from ordinary people by a factor of over 100.
Because lobbyists aren't advocating for something that the constituents the representative supposedly works for. They're advocating something that a corporation, likely not even within the district or state wants.
As an example why can't I who don't live in your state go to your representative and get him to act in my best interests? Why would it be wrong for your representative to act in my interest instead of yours?
It's completely different. A random voter is that representative's constituent. The representative is beholden to that person. A lobbyist is merely a random person who donates to political campaigns and secures other favors. The representative is not beholden to this person.
the problem has been is the lobbying in Washington and even at state and city levels has become a friends and family thing and even a parking place for politicians who are down and out.
hence the amount of wealth that politicians, their family which usually means children, gain while they are in office is phenomenal and can lead to positions at state and city levels. the real one percent are these upper end politicians and bureaucrats who just operate with near impunity because its basically impossible to follow all the trails or because much of it has been made legal; usually by making laws that say one thing and do another.
That stuff is all just part of the game. The real issue with lobbyists is they appear to subject matter experts to the politicians. politicians who are not subject matter experts at almost anything generally find themselves believing what lobbyists say. The fact that they're whined and dined and made their time getting lectured enjoyable isn't really the problem so much as they are only getting half truths. The article has a perfect example where politicians say that it won't tie the hands of the IRS I'm sure they honestly believe that. The problem is that real subject matter experts tax lawyers say it will. but it doesn't matter The politicians have already believed something different. and it's much easier to con a man than convince he's been conned.
People only hear about lobbying in a bad light but the truth is they are vitally essential - not all lobbying is back room dealing - the vast majority of it is basically advising. When you call your senator you would be lobbying on behalf of a cause.
If the government wanted to put a back door in encryption, who is it that tells them why that’s a bad idea? Quite often, lobbyists (in this case on Behalf of companies whose security would be compromised). Industries organize lobbyists to advocate for themselves because politicians can’t possibly understand all the ramifications of the laws they pass.
There are definitely issues with organized lobbying but the alternatives are lacking.
I'm building https://newsletterss.com a newsletters reader that started as a tool that I wanted to build for my own and I felt like turning it into a side project.
For me the most important aspect of this acquisition is that Automattic is a fully remote company. Tumblr's office space in New York City must be very expensive, I wonder if they're getting rid of it and transition everyone to remote.
Automattic has had offices in the past, so there is some precedent. The Tumblr team has a strong office culture, so we don't want to break anything that's working well. Simultaneously we believe the future of work is distributed, and over the next decade that's the direction we firmly want to head. If you want to learn more about this, including hybrid organizations, check out my new podcast at distributed.blog.
Verizon moved Tumblr out of their longtime HQ last year. It was a beautiful space in Flatiron District that the company occupied for almost 8 years. I've heard the space is now a WeWork.
Unfortunately, 'mauricio' is on the global domain reserve list administered by ICANN, so it cannot be registered on any ngTLD. I believe it's Mauritius in another language?
Oh, interesting, yes this is "mauritius" in Spanish a not so common name. I didn't know this, thank you for pointing it out. I guess that list is recent as mauricio.com and mauricio.co belongs to regular people and are currently working.
Do you happen to have a link to said list? A quick googling returned nothing relevant for me.
.com is a legacy gTLD, which existed long before these restrictions were codified in 2012 for the new gTLD program. .co is a ccTLD (it's for Colombia), and ccTLDs also predate the gTLD program and are not subject to the gTLD program restrictions besides.
Mine is not available either and I doubt someone paid $11,500 for an Italian name with the dev extension. How come? My guess is some providers are "reserving" them.
Yeah, real WHOIS (like from the command line, not one of those sites that proxies it for you). That'll go direct to our registry application, bypassing all registrars entirely.
