BudgetSheet ( https://www.budgetsheet.com ) -> $6k MRR avg. for the year. Will likely have my first $10k month in January.
Live Bank Transactions + Google Sheets. Links accounts with Plaid to track transactions and balances over time with some helpful templates. All the data is yours in your own spreadsheet to do with what you want.
Revenue is somewhat seasonal. Most revenue comes in Q1+Q2 and trails off in Q3+Q4. Used by individuals and small businesses that love spreadsheets and want to manage their own finances.
Yes. Tax season for small businesses and New Year's resolutions for personal finances are the times I get the largest influx of new signups and subscriptions.
Not really sure how to answer this, because there are varying degrees of "self hosted" vs. "cloud hosted".
This is a Next.js app hosted on Render.com, which is a managed VPS offering similar to Heroku. BudgetSheet is also of course completely reliant on Google Cloud though with Google Apps Script and the Workspace Marketplace where it is listed.
This article is incredible. As someone who built their first website in Geocities with HTML framesets and tables, the history represented in this article is very accurate. Well done, OP!
Stores like Dollar General and Family Dollar are not cheap dollar stores. They are convenience stores. And convenience stores always charge more... for the... convenience of not having to make a longer trip to a larger store. Price mis-labeling aside, the premise of the article is wrong.
You can't, and this was readily apparent in 2020 with Covid. Even doctors presenting factual information got censored and de-platformed by YouTube.
The only real competing video platform that promises no censorship is Rumble ( https://rumble.com ), but it has a very right-wing slant due to conservatives flocking to it during all the Covid-era social media censorship.
Yeah the moment they started I knew it was doomed to fail. Get it wrong once and your credibility is ruined. They should have never tried to censor content outside of what is legally required and therefore defined.
Society is doomed because we stopped silencing disinformation peddlers. We know what happens when Nazis are allowed to spread propaganda freely - because that happened one time in Germany, and we saw the results. We don't know what happens when antivaxxers are allowed to spread propaganda freely, but it's not hard to guess, and measles cases are on the rise. You can argue it's not YouTube's problem to solve, but nobody else is solving it, so it's hard for me to blame them for trying.
There's also this annoying pattern where 98% of the complaints about censorship are from people who are mad that the objectively stupid and dangerous stuff they were trying to profit from got censored, so it becomes a "boy who cried wolf" situation where any complaint about internet censorship is ignored on the assumption it's one of those. (What if there really is a Nigerian prince who needs my help, and I don't read his email?)
This time, though... Society is not being destroyed by people pirating Windows 11. That is entirely different from censoring things that destroy society, and they don't have a good excuse.
>Society is doomed because we stopped silencing disinformation peddlers. We know what happens when Nazis are allowed to spread propaganda freely - because that happened one time in Germany, and we saw the results.
That one time in Germany, actually an 80 year long ongoing event in central Europe. Hitler didn't wake up one day with a novel idea about the Jews and the place of the German people, these were foundational ideas in the culture at least as far back as Wagner.
If anything, this pro-censorship argument is self defeating, because the "disinformation" peddlers that were silenced in the second reich were generally those of the liberal, anglo, and francophilic variety, those who would seek to decenter the goal of a collective German destiny.
Censorship is only ever a good if you find yourself a part of the group that would be doing the censoring.
> The moral of the story is: if you’re against witch-hunts, and you promise to found your own little utopian community where witch-hunts will never happen, your new society will end up consisting of approximately three principled civil libertarians and seven zillion witches. It will be a terrible place to live even if witch-hunts are genuinely wrong.
I looked at the front page alone and it's full of right wing hot takes and neo-nazis. If a platform wants to accept white-supremacists that's one thing. When it's right on their front page though it's being actively promoted.
It's because the only valid argument nazis have for why they should be allowed to broadcast what they have to say is that (in most jurisdictions) it's not literally illegal to.
100% correct. Taking 10% away to remove downside risk of the remaining 90% is an absolute no-brainer, especially if it is a meaningful sum of money to you.
Indeed; I can't imagine a world where 11% higher gains makes a significant difference. Either that 11% is a large number in an absolute sense, in which case the 89% you retained is also VERY large; or it's not that big of an absolute number and doesn't matter that much anyway.
Does anyone have a link to the actual rules/document they are asked to sign? I clicked on the "new rules" link in the article linked here, and it doesn't actually show all the rules.
While it's nice to see the reaction from one side, I'd like to be able to balance that against the actual text of the document myself.
The most draconian new rule is that it bars the press from reporting any information unless they get it approved for public release by an appropriate authorizing official. This would basically turn the press into a PR mouthpiece for the Dept of War.
>> it bars the press from reporting any information unless they get it approved for public release by an appropriate authorizing official
No, the rules don't pertain to reporting any information, they pertain to unauthorized reporting of two specific classifications of information, "CNSI" (Classified National Security Information) and "CUI" (Controlled Unclassified Information). And they don't bar reporting the information, they say that someone who reports the information could lose their access to the Pentagon.
CNSI is "information on the national defense and foreign relations of the United States, including information relating to defense against transnational terrorism, that has been determined pursuant to Executive Order 13526, or any predecessor order, to require protection against unauthorized disclosure and is marked to indicate its classified status when in documentary form".
CUI is "unclassified information the United States Government creates or possesses that requires safeguarding or dissemination controls limiting its distribution to those with a lawful government purpose. CUI may not be released to the public absent further review.
The DoD CUI Program, established through Executive Order 13556, standardizes the safeguarding of information across multiple categories. For example, CUI categories exist to protect Privacy Act information, attorney-client privileged information, and controlled technical information, among many others."
You've got that backwards. Originally stemming from the War Department, the "Department of Defense" is a cuddly name so Americans can feel better about, and potentially ignore, being warmongers.
No, I don't. The legal name of the Department headed by Pete Hegseth is the Department of Defense, and it is the only name that entity has ever had.
> Originally stemming from the War Department
This a somewhat popular myth, resurgent recently because it is expressly part of the narrative of the Trump Administration and therefore the MAGA cult, but its false. The Department of War is the predecessor of the modern Departments of the Army and Air Force which it was split into, not the Department of Defense, which was created ex nihilo to be placed over the existing military departments at the same time one of those department s was being split.
Originally, the US (following the British model, which also persisted until just after WWII) had two separate defense edtablishments, the Department of War (responsible for the Army) and Department of the Navy (responsible for the Navy and Marine Corps); after WWII a combined defense establishment was created above those, but at the same time it was created, the Air Force was split off from the Army and the War Department was split into the Department of the Army and the Department of the Air Force, which is why the Department of Defense is the only cabinet level department with subordinate entities also called “departments”.
I am saying that it is not the legal name of the Department. As far as I know its not illegal to refer to it as the Department of War, the Fighty Bunch, or Bob, but it is weirdly unprofessional to just start calling givernment departments by random made up names that aren’t what they are specified as in law.
Gulf of Mexico is the common name, used extensively by all types of people since the 17th century. The idea that this is a propaganda nickname is so absurd that I can only consider it a bold faced lie.
Far as I can tell that law has no real jurisdiction over that piece of geography. To steelman you stupid point... Only Americans should be calling it that lol.
aka the entire point of the exercise. The innocuous components are there so that the Dept of Defense can claim that it's those minor items the press is objecting to, without having to defend the actual substantive policy change.
> A producer's film is endangered when his star walks off, so he decides to digitally create an actress to substitute for the star, becoming an overnight sensation that everyone thinks is a real person.
> A producer's film is endangered when his star walks off, so he decides to digitally create an actress to substitute for the star, becoming an overnight sensation that everyone thinks is a real person.
There is no business that I hate more than TicketMaster.
In 2016, the OKC Thunder were making a playoff run. They just advanced to the finals and tickets were set to "go on sale to the public" at 10am on a certain day. I signed up for an account, got logged in, etc. and kept refreshing the page around 10am that day, card in hand to buy. The second that time elapsed, all tickets were sold out. Yet somehow thousands of tickets were available for "resale" instantly at $100+ more per ticket PLUS a transfer fee. My jaw was on the floor. Absolute and complete bullshit. I knew the gig then. It was obvious they just let all tickets get bought up by resellers/scalpers/bots without a care in the world for the actual fans. They actually make even more money allowing it to be this way due to the extra transfer fees on top of the original sale. I watched the finals on TV instead since I didn't have the money for that earlier in my career. Burn this company to the ground with the heat of a thousand suns.
Ticket brokers control 85%+ of the market. The problem is that they’re completely insulated from any scrutiny by the platforms (Stubhub and Vividseats actively work with larger ticket brokers as well). Punishing Ticketmaster doesn’t really change that dynamic.
Live Bank Transactions + Google Sheets. Links accounts with Plaid to track transactions and balances over time with some helpful templates. All the data is yours in your own spreadsheet to do with what you want.
Revenue is somewhat seasonal. Most revenue comes in Q1+Q2 and trails off in Q3+Q4. Used by individuals and small businesses that love spreadsheets and want to manage their own finances.