This was obvious to anyone who’s used it for any length of time. I’m just surprised the monetisation enshittification didn’t win the race.
The only thing I’ve used Portainer for in the last few years is to easily tidy up my old images.
Sure, it’s trivial on CLI, but why not. 😄 In short: nothing of value lost.
Unrealistic, because the shitwit has the phone to his ear. Almost never happens in real life.
They always have it on speakerphone and shout at it, and the whole block/room/bus/train gets to hear what’s shouted back. 😒
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.
Best headline about this so far.
This is part of the plot/shtick to the anime Overlord. 😄
“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:
Your limited company pays less Corporation Tax when it gives the following to charity:
- money
- equipment or trading stock (items it makes or sells)
- land, property or shares in another company (shares in your own company do not qualify)
- employees (on secondment)
- sponsorship payments
You can claim tax relief by deducting the value of your donations from your total business profits before you pay tax.
It also allows the company to play PR games with how much “they” give to charity.
This is not true
…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!” 😀
Is this an “I am a very stable genius” confession for sloperators, or is there something I’m missing? 🤔
This is the way.
Terrifying that it takes state intervention to do this most basic of things. Fuck this timeline.
I’ll never understand why people accept SMS 2FA as any kind of security. Might as well put it as an ad in a newspaper. 🤦🏻♂️