There’s no reason that guilt would be absent from helpinghelp a specific person in need (like your struggling mother example). Plenty of people feel guilty taking handouts and will outright refuse help when they might need it.

As for the drive thru thing, I think you might be talking about something different than what I’ve seen/done, which is just paying for your own meal and the people behind you. There isn’t any expectation for them to continue some chain, and in many ways it’s a bit of an empty gesture (they are just taking that first person’s goodwill and passing it to the next in line).

My interpretation of paying it forward is the premise of receiving something when you’re in need, then, when you’re able, to give something back. Not to the one who helped you, as that would be repaying a debt.

If that’s a joke, I don’t get it.

If that’s real, I don’t know why.

Help?

I guess it’s more asking what the alternatives could be. I don’t have the answer, and truthfully don’t have much of an idea what is out there to solve that problem.

Is there a system that can get information to someone, maintaining anonymity for the sender the whole way through? Like having an open drop box where you’d be able to put whatever documents you want into it.

So I recognize that having the files securely encrypted is a valuable thing, and that having privacy for sharing is also important. But how do you actually share this without creating a vulnerable point?

Say I wanted to leak some file as a whistleblower, I’d still need to get the link/password/etc shared to whomever I’m leaking to, right? Sorta defeats the purpose when you need some other source of contact, right?

What’s amusing to me is that they referred to the job interviewer having similar reliability, but didn’t say whether it was good or not. Purely let the bias of the article imply that they were highly reliable.