DOE labs get new management all the time, Sandia National Laboratories got new management in 2017, Los Alamos in 2018, ... One of the motivating factors is reducing operating costs. Typically this has minimal impact on the scientists who work there, and it's just the president and vice presidents who are replaced.

as a rock

Not possible.

The only reason anyone goes to a conference at all is for the party. Yeah there is some guy from somewhere taking about something, and sure we all pretend to be interested, but that is just because we know there are eyes on us and we have to go through the formality of the conference for the IRS to allow this as T&E.
But all we are all doing is waiting for it onto end so we can spend $400 on sushi and sake and then 10 times that on drinks, because we need to unwind from the pressure of the conference and also lubricants the gears of networking so we can locate a saleswoman from Nebraska so we can chat her up because we are trying to finish up our 50 State Collection and we havenâ(TM)t banged anyone from Nebraska yet and this conference is our chance because who the hell wants to suffer through an actual trip to Nebraska to meet a Nebraskan? And all the married people are of course cheering this whole thing on since they need to live vicariously and this is their only opportunity to do so since their spouses frown on this sort of behavior.

So unless Zoom is going to send me thousands of dollar in liqour and a truckload of new hires, both of which Iâ(TM)m open to, they arenâ(TM)t going to recreate the experience of any conference Iâ(TM)ve ever attended.

A transaction tax would fix HFT in a New York microsecond.

And the BIN (bank numbers) of those virtual cards are trivially identifiable and able to be blocked.

Look, I get it: you want a world where fraudsters can operate with no regulation and rob with impunity and I don't. Let's agree to disagree.

They should not be allowed to run a platform and take "no responsibility" while raking a percentage off of fraud.

You seem to not mind that they enable fraud but even you admit they "sell" something. In a functioning regulatory environment, their business model will change or they will be shut down.

[citation needed] - the "Scamstarter" nickname didn't come about for nothing. It's not whether projects "succeed" or "fail" - it's that Scamstarter releases the money in its entirety without monitoring manufacturing or delivery. So scams proliferat and they allow "creators" to use trade dress of stores so despite the warnings, more than the "functionally illterate" believe they're funding manufacturing and reasonably believe a platform would exercise safeguards to ensure that at least the "creator" doesn't take the money and run, as has happened on numerous occasions with Scamstarter/Kickstarter giving zero fscks because they got paid.

You mean the donations not specifying employers? I'm not sure how that's proof of fraud but it does look suspicious.

That is a reasonable stance but Amazon is on the hook to make its customers whole when they're scammed by a platform merchant and so they don't profit from scams at customer expense like Kickstarter does.

Caveat emptor is not a good argument for allowing platforms that exercise no oversight and profit from scams to exist. I look forward to Biden's FTC clamping down.

If it were on a legitimate platform, I'd consider contributing now. But since it's on Scamstarter, I'll wait.

Damn it, you beat me to it.

. . . and they couldn't parallel construction their way around all the wiretapping evidence. So it was either show their cards and shut it down or let all the criminals walk. Look for a new company with mysterious funding offering a similar product soon.