That’ll be a new premium business feature where if you pay enough it’ll ignore users requests to take the mask off.

I don’t own the game nor gave I played it, but a friend was telling me the game has a lot of interactable things in-world so perhaps they meant you can actually turn off the alarm in-game.

The fiber that binds them?

Microsoft certainly tries it’s best to keep you locked into their ecosystem by making it inconvenient but not impossible to leave though that’s not the real reason, it’s security. Businesses and especially governments are scared of nation state hackers contributing malicious code to open source products and falsely assume it’s safer to use closed source software because those incidents aren’t public. There’s so much great software out there I’d love to use and the first question I’m asked when I bring it up is can you prove China hasn’t contributed code?

There seems to be some confusion here so perhaps I didn’t make myself clear, everyone involved in getting the cookies into a box and ready to be sold by a troop are covered under what is known as the cost, we’ve already established the cost is 24%. What’s left over is the profit which would be 76% of the revenue.

I’m asserting the troop should keep the 76% profit. Currently we are giving the troop 22% and a parent organization 54%, maybe it’s used for good maybe it’s used to keep the parent organization pockets full who knows because neither you or I can make any claim as to where the money goes with any real certainty.

You are diminishing the work of the troop here, these girls are volunteering not just their time but also the parents and other family members involved and they should be the ones to benefit. “Oh no it was an easy job and they just had to sell to their relatives and it was hardly any effort!”, even from that perspective I still don’t understand why you think it’s acceptable to give away 54% of the revenue to someone who did nothing solely because it was minimal effort on their part.

Ignoring taxes and other fees for this example, if I wanted to do my own similar fundraiser and went to the grocery store and bought 100 boxes of cookies there for $1 a box and then the troop sold them for $4 a box $100 covers my losses leaving $300 for profit for the troop. Should I pay the grocery store an extra $216 because they facilitated my actions?

Your Samoa chart tells me that the cost to produce and drop ship these cookies is slightly less than a quarter of the sales price, yet the troop doing all of the work sees 22% revenue which is exploitation. A fundraiser should see all profits go to the troop that does all the work after expenses, not 22%.

It’s warms my heart to hear that the girl scouts don’t discriminate with their child exploitation to sell their cookies.

I recant my statement after having initially misunderstood the revenue and expenses regarding fundraising in relation to the value provided for the money taken from fundraising.