Look how the light catches the delicate pubic hairs. The skin dry from too much air-con and not enough moisturiser.
"I want a naked coder calendar" said nobody ever.
A better idea would have been to photograph coders at their messy workspaces, or portraits of coders taken immediately after resolving a tricky bug. Or just something that won't scare little kids.
"The idea that the state should subsidise giving to good causes..."
Their argument starts with the idea that letting people keep their own money is a subsidy, and that giving to charity is a form of personal consumption.
Those are non-starting opinions for lots of people, including me. The government works for the people and taxes are the only equitable way for it to generate income. And giving away to charity is the exact opposite of personal consumption, since a person is helping society, not themselves, in ways they find most meaningful.
Ugh, just turns my stomach "gives the wealthiest taxpayers a disproportionate role in allocating public resources." A person's income is not a public resource, it's their income, which we vote to tax a portion of.
I think it's reasonable to say that it's a subsidy to tax everything except one thing, since it makes investment in that one thing relatively more attractive than it otherwise would be.
> giving away to charity is the exact opposite of personal consumption, since a person is helping society, not themselves, in ways they find most meaningful.
A charitable foundation can be just about anything. Many wealthy people have their own that almost entirely further their own interests (e.g. an "art museum" next door to them, open only by appointment with them). Or a political advocacy group can be structured as a charity. Or something indistinguishable from an ordinary business (e.g. IKEA). It's very possible for charities to act against the interests of society at large.
If you really want your money to help society, tax is the best way for it to do so. I can maybe see an argument for a narrow class of charities being tax-exempt, but not charitable donations in general under our current definitions.
> And giving away to charity is the exact opposite of personal consumption, since a person is helping society, not themselves, in ways they find most meaningful.
But see, for a counter example, Eton which is an exclusive fee-paying school and also a charity.
I think part of the justification is that people who donate sometimes donate to charities that they own or control and promptly spend the money on themselves to avoid taxes. This isn't even mostly true but there are cases where this happens.
It would have been nice —having noticed your mindlessness after clicking— that you not mindlessly comment too.
If you work at the sort of place where a "bit of knee" isn't tolerated, I think you need to stop working in the Victorian times.
If you're just worried about the words, "without clothes" is in the title here. That should be enough for anybody infer that there might at least be discussion about nudity.
Right, because there's such a big market for calendars with naked coders. You totally don't have to guilt-trip people into buying them with some leukemia sap story.
