The source of this information is Ronny Jackson, who claimed that Trump’s cognitive and cardiac health were both “excellent”. He was also demoted by the Navy for drinking and taking Ambien while on duty.
Nothing he says should be believed without additional confirmation.
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.
Bella Thorne
I don’t know man. It feels like pigeonholing somebody’s sexual preferences based on the style of their clothing might not be accurate.
Take a look at this photo of Mötley Crue from back in the day, and those guys were renowned for their heterosexuality.
It’s in quotes because the headline is quoting a source rather than reporting information that the newspaper has evaluated themselves.
I see what you’re getting at and your position is reasonable, but I think misses the point of the initial comment, viz. The Economist is known for objective reporting (neutrality in bias), in part because they are open about their editorial slant (non-neutrality of opinion).
For example: “Ukraine is winning the economic war. This is a good thing.” - Economist reporting vs. “Ukraine is winning the economic war. This is a bad thing.” - Converse-Economist vs. “Ukraine is losing the economic war.” - Pro-Russian bias
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.
It might not contribute to the conversation, but I thought your response was worth an upvote.
Why are you building a straw man? I made no claim about the truth or falsity of what he said; just that you shouldn’t believe it from him.