It’s a tricky to maintain balance between openness to opposing views while avoiding susceptibility to disingenuous “just asking questions” diversion.

Don’t feed the trolls. This is an obvious attempt to divert the conversation.

It took me a second to figure out what you were referring to, but yeah, that’s a case in point.

Yes, and this lawsuit follows a whole series of other actions by the SEC. It may seem like a long time, but due process was followed.

This is absolutely spot on.

I’m definitely not doing that. I’m pointing out that the commenter above is correct and you appear to have a misconception about what non-profit means.

You mean 501©, and distribution of excess profit would at minimum evoke an excise tax and might cause loss of 501© status.

I don’t know that your comparison to Facebook holds water. Firstly, Meta’s employees are spread over three divisions: Apps, Platforms/Infrastructure, and Product Services (ads, strategy etc), where Facebook itself is just one part of the Apps division. Even assuming that Facebook occupies 50% of Meta’s total workforce (likely a massive overestimate), that brings us to around 30k employees for 3billion users, or 100k users per employee. That gives you about 0.5 FTE for your instance.

More importantly though, the job of administering a mastodon instance isn’t really comparable to the job of engineering a social network, so taking a Facebook’s salary or user numbers doesn’t really give us much actionable data. We don’t know how many Meta employees are directly involved in administration of Facebook, or how much they’re compensated.

Ultimately, it’s about what your users are willing to pay. If you can persuade all 10k of your MAUs that $9/month is worth the value they get from your instance, then go ahead. However, I suspect that you’ll be lucky to get even 1/10 of that.

The previous commenter makes a worthwhile point even if their phrasing isn’t to your liking. 8 people all making 120k per year at 32 hrs/wk seems excessive for a server with less than 10,000 monthly active users.

Yes, it is rude.

You made an assertion. If you are unable to provide supporting evidence, we can assume that your assertion is incorrect without needing to prove anything.

Advertising for a product isn’t a citation. That article literally just repeats Dyson’s own claims. Do you have anything that actually tests that claim?

You made a claim first, so you should provide your citation first as well.

They do not. For a given power input they produce less airflow at lower velocity than a regular fan. They’re a complete scam.