[HN Gopher] The future our grandchildren deserve
___________________________________________________________________
The future our grandchildren deserve
Author : Brajeshwar
Score : 78 points
Date : 2022-12-20 15:59 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.gatesnotes.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.gatesnotes.com)
| 4qz wrote:
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| Eh.
|
| I am going to bite. Why should we do that?
| dang wrote:
| Please don't respond to a bad comment by breaking the site
| guidelines yourself. That only makes everything worse.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| dang wrote:
| We've banned this account for posting flamebait and/or
| unsubstantive comments. Please don't create accounts to break
| HN's rules with.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| stephc_int13 wrote:
| Money is only a proxy for power, because it is easier to measure
| and is fungible.
|
| But talking about inequalities, especially related to political
| systems and redistribution, we should be taking a closer look at
| power because this is, always, ultimately, the real thing.
|
| Money can be kind of boring when you have too much of it, power
| has a longer lasting appeal, and for some people, the appetite is
| bottomless.
|
| I tend to be wary of power-hungry types.
|
| Also, contrary to wealth, power is a zero sum game, and the size
| of the pie is directly defined by the demography.
| SuoDuanDao wrote:
| >contrary to wealth, power is a zero sum game
|
| Not sure I agree. Power over other people maybe, but there is
| also power to affect the nonhuman environment. A modern
| farmer's power to alter his immediate environment is similar to
| a feudal lord's.
| 29athrowaway wrote:
| There are dimensions of power.
|
| A corn farmer is ruled by the government, the market, the
| seed corporations, the fossil fuel industry, the different
| machinery manufacturers (vendor lock-in), the banks, etc.
| syntheweave wrote:
| Or alternately, the anecdote of Alexander and Diogenes.
| Wherever you voluntarily become the student, the teacher
| has the power - even if the teacher has nothing material.
|
| The materialistic power ladders are just visible and highly
| competitive. People who don't want to bother with it
| usually gravitate towards something more esoteric.
| manmal wrote:
| Where I live, some (ex) farmers own half of their town's
| land. They practically _are_ feudal lords.
| stephc_int13 wrote:
| This is semantic counter-argument.
|
| I agree that Power, as a word, is a bit vague.
|
| And to some extent I also agree that power tends to not be
| self-limiting to other humans, we tend to use it over animals
| and nature.
| rs_rs_rs_rs_rs wrote:
| Bill Gates does not care about the future of your grandchildren,
| he only cares about his public image.
| dang wrote:
| Maybe so, but please don't post unsubstantive comments to
| Hacker News.
| stephc_int13 wrote:
| Am I the only one growing suspicious of this since the SBF/FTX
| effective altruism turned out to be a front to masquerade a good
| old Ponzi?
|
| I don't think the Gates foundation is a Ponzi, but I am not
| entirely convinced that all of this is really what is advertised.
|
| Are there any reliable (external and independent) audits for
| charities?
| pyuser583 wrote:
| Gates alternative to charity is to establish a dynasty, like
| the Rockefellers, Hearst, Kennedys.
|
| Maybe that's a better approach. Dynasties can do good,
| especially when people are more critical of them, and willing
| to hold them to account.
| doitLP wrote:
| Any extremely well-funded private initiative that seeks to
| influence governments should be watched closely.
| semi_square wrote:
| You can check the IRS website and retrieve the form 990 and
| 990-EZ for the charities you're curious about. The SBF/FTX
| cause from the get-go was a grift enterprise, the dude knew
| what he was doing as per his countless messages, relationships
| with politicians, and his parents/families involvement in his
| cause.
| 23B1 wrote:
| The IRS. Which, as I'm sure you're aware, is doing a great job
| of it.
|
| https://archive.vn/n1AQy
| gabcoh wrote:
| Do you mean to say both FTX and effective altruism are Ponzi
| schemes? Obviously SBF and FTX turned out to be a huge fraud,
| but while EA benefited from the fraud mostly unknowingly
| (although there are open questions as to whether they should
| have been more skeptical of SBF) I don't think it's fair to say
| that it is fraudulent itself (at least as far as we currently
| know). EA is big and while you may disagree with their cause
| prioritiazation, it is clear real work is being done in the
| movement.
| stephc_int13 wrote:
| Have you heard about Wytham Abbey?
|
| The rationalization they used to justify this is probably the
| same pattern they use for everything.
|
| Why should I believe them?
|
| Facts are more reliable than words.
| godelski wrote:
| It's also possible that things start with good intentions and
| get taken advantage of. I'm just saying that it is possible
| MacAskill got conned along with everyone else that invested and
| used FTX. I don't want to stop you from being skeptical (please
| do), but I want to suggest that there are alternative and
| mundane explanations for things. It helps us actually solve
| issues with the system instead of promoting conspiracy. People
| can be doing both good and bad at the same time. People are
| often well intended and end up doing wrong (quite common
| actually. I guarantee both of us do this). As for the Gates
| Foundation, it is also possible that Gates is trying to use the
| money most effectively to solve problems he thinks is
| important, while not having a good grasp on what is important
| to the median person, while also getting major tax benefits,
| and is influencing the government (it is possible that Gates's
| interests may not align with the public's and thus that
| influence is harmful despite them thinking it is beneficial).
| akprasad wrote:
| The closest I can think of is GiveWell [1], but it is part of
| the broader effective altruism movement, so perhaps it won't
| meet your bar.
|
| [1]: https://www.givewell.org
| stephc_int13 wrote:
| Clearly not.
| muh_gradle wrote:
| They're not even in the same conversation. FTX was set up to be
| a grift by SBF from the get go. Gates Foundation has decades of
| work.
| atlasunshrugged wrote:
| I'm not sure I understand the concern about the Gates
| foundation in particular -- they are mainly funded by Gates and
| Buffett and don't solicit donations from the general public,
| don't do much domestic political stuff, and foreign political
| work they do doesn't seem like it'd be particularly beneficial
| for Microsoft or Buffett's portfolio.
|
| Since you're skeptical of effective altruism, Givewell probably
| isn't going garner a lot of trust for you which is unfortunate
| because they really do some of the best work in the field for
| trying to understand the effectiveness of charities (e.g. on a
| cost/daly basis). Charity Navigator was founded with an idea of
| kind of providing independent audits but to me it's more like a
| Yelp for charities and not super useful.
| btdmaster wrote:
| Gates foundation primarily spends money on stocks[0] (many of
| which arguably going directly against its stated goals, like
| John Deere)
|
| [0] https://dataroma.com/m/holdings.php?m=GFT
| eloff wrote:
| You have to invest the money you don't intend to spend now.
| xmprt wrote:
| That's true but that saying breaks down when you're
| investing money into and benefiting technology that makes
| the world less open and sustainable and then proceed to
| talk about everything you're doing to make the world more
| sustainable.
| eloff wrote:
| Does it? Maybe indirectly. The stock price of a company
| doesn't directly translate to its power in the world.
|
| But even then the cases you're talking about are probably
| not black and white. So the answer is likely a further
| "maybe partly, maybe indirectly".
|
| Then if you take the profits and put it towards doing
| good in the world, have you done net good? Probably.
|
| It's complicated.
| alfor wrote:
| aschearer wrote:
| > I am not entirely convinced that all of this is really what
| is advertised.
|
| What does that even mean? Be explicit. Right now I'm left to
| assume you think he's implanting 5G chips in children...
|
| More to the point, barring huge changes in this country, what
| else can we expect of the ultra rich? What Gates is doing is
| nearly best case scenario...
| yunwal wrote:
| I'd prefer if he didn't hang out with convicted child rapists
| for one.
| stephc_int13 wrote:
| I have absolutely no theory about what they are doing. I have
| no idea.
|
| The question is this: why should we give this foundation more
| credits than what SBF was trying to achieve?
|
| How do we know this is not bogus? What about secondary
| effects? What about the potential induced corruption around
| those super-rich foundations?
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| What if what if what if?
|
| Look at what the foundation has done and judge them on
| that. You seem to be looking for a reason to judge them
| based on nothing other than your own suspicion.
|
| The most (unfounded) ulterior motive that I can imagine is
| that they want to help poor countries prosper so that they
| grow the pot and keep our markets going up. That benefits
| everyone though so it's hard to knock it.
| Xelynega wrote:
| Doesn't Microsoft have a partnership with OpenAI, who's
| product is essentially "getting people in third world
| countries to create datasets to train their models"? I
| don't see how funneling the people in these countries
| into low-paid jobs that require a lot of unpaid work to
| accomplish(finding tasks on mechanical Turk isn't paid)
| "benefits everyone".
| aschearer wrote:
| The response is, look it up -- the Gates Foundation
| publishes stuff all the time.
|
| As for the hand wringing around secondary effects,
| corruption, etc. Who cares? Rich people are going to be
| rich. Gates is visibly giving money away, explaining his
| process, etc. What are the other ultra rich doing? We have
| even less insight and less reason to think they're pitching
| in for humanity.
|
| And that's all by design in this country, and I doubt
| there's a plurality of people who would seek to change it.
|
| I'm not trying to what-about-you. I'm trying to say, let's
| applaud the good, even if it falls short of perfect.
| Xelynega wrote:
| My answer is we don't, and anythung a foundation like this
| puts effort towards is going to be biased(I've yet to see
| the gates foundation take up a social cause that would
| affect Microsoft's bottom line).
|
| The whole idea of charities is that were letting private
| entities control the "altruism dollars" in society, the
| only reason to do this is to prevent the public from
| deciding the course of the funds and to add a layer of
| obscurity to make it harder for the public to see where the
| funds are going.
|
| To the people responding to you basically saying "charities
| are good, what do you mean?", why is it that we have to
| donate money to the gates foundation to provide foreign
| aid, isn't that one of the things we expect our government
| to do and pay taxes towards?
| nindalf wrote:
| SBF was donating his customers' deposits. Bill Gates is
| donating his own wealth.
|
| SBF made his money from a Ponzi scheme. Gates made his
| money selling software.
|
| SBF's wealth existed only in fantasy land. Gates' wealth
| exists on the real stock market.
|
| I could go on. At no point am I claiming that Gates is an
| angel or that every action taken by Microsoft over the last
| 40 years is faultless. No, they're both far from perfect.
|
| But SBF is a con man. And Gates is not.
| eli_gottlieb wrote:
| >I don't think the Gates foundation is a Ponzi, but I am not
| entirely convinced that all of this is really what is
| advertised.
|
| Sorta depends what you think is advertised. AFAICT what's
| advertised is that Bill Gates gives away his money to create
| the kind of world and society Bill Gates wants to live in. I
| don't really see why I should want to live according to Bill
| Gates' ideas or preferences, so I'm critical on that ground --
| but that doesn't make it a scam.
| programmarchy wrote:
| Improvements upon math education, ultrasound technology, and
| construction technology all sound like very reasonable, practical
| goals. Perhaps the most radical goal is gene therapy, but also
| the most exciting and sci-fi.
| Xelynega wrote:
| Math education: Microsoft hires hundreds of math graduates
| yearly, an excess of those would be beneficial to Microsofts
| bottom line.
|
| Ultrasound technology: Microsoft has a "digital health"
| department that would benefit similarly from more graduates in
| the field.
|
| Construction technology: Microsoft has existing partnerships in
| construction technology, and would similarly benefit from an
| increased number of graduates in the field driving down wages.
|
| Why are these things that benefit Microsoft the "future our
| grandchildren deserve"? It seems to be a pretty biased view of
| the future.
| jeffbee wrote:
| > construction technology
|
| Isn't it a bit odd to present a chart that shows buildings to
| be the least-important component of the problem, and then go on
| to talk about only that small component? Especially saying
| "Buildings are a surprisingly large source of emissions" when
| the graphic just above that sentence shows that buildings are
| not.
| itishappy wrote:
| The previous 12 paragraphs of the building section were
| dedicated to addressing exactly that. He speaks about the
| work being done in the agriculture and energy sectors.
|
| "Surprisingly large" does not imply it's the largest.
| janef0421 wrote:
| This seems overly focused on novel technologies, which I think is
| a grave mistake. Humans have been developing technology for
| millennia, and many of these technologies would be very useful in
| the modern age. For instance, the Persians created wind cooling
| towers, which can be used to effectively cool indoor spaces
| without using large amounts of energy.
| mc32 wrote:
| Provide education, jobs and contraceptives to those with high
| reproduction rates --pop growth will slow thus putting less
| pressure on the environment (see China vs India). Less
| encroachment on nature, less sequestered carbon released. Help to
| modernize poor countries' energy grids and electrify the
| hinterlands.
|
| Get people in rich countries to give up cheap disposable stuff
| and give up energy consuming entertainment (international travel,
| etc) and get them to live frugally, obviously including the
| superwealthy.
|
| Don't celebrate becoming rich. Don't celebrate consumerism. Put
| down tiktok, put down instagram. Practice secular (or religious)
| asceticism and be comfortable with that.
|
| Oh, wait, people don't want to actually do what will work.
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| << Get people in rich countries to give up cheap disposable
| stuff and give up energy consuming entertainment (international
| travel, etc) and get them to live frugally, obviously including
| the superwealthy.
|
| You may be onto something. It is fine to pay lip service to
| this ideal in an abstract, but as Covid pandemic has shown,
| politicians will drop the facade of masks at the drop of a hat
| if they are personally inconvenienced ( CA comes to mind, but
| it is not an isolated incident ).
|
| At the end of the day, I want the rules to be applied equally,
| but they are not ( and likely never will be ).
|
| Come to think of it, and it is going to sound truly awful, why
| do we devote so much energy to other countries instead of
| focusing on what is happening in US? Wouldn't it be a time
| better spent to make US ( the land I and Gates live in ) a
| better place?
|
| << Don't celebrate consumerism.
|
| I am not sure you appreciate how much US economy relies on
| this.
|
| << Put down tiktok, put down instagram.
|
| No argument from me.
|
| << Practice secular (or religious) asceticism and be
| comfortable with that.
|
| Eh. I think the question that comes to mind is why. I am not
| trying to be combative, but why do you think it is reasonable
| to impose your vision upon others.
| mc32 wrote:
| Endless growth is not attainable on this Earth. Japan hit the
| inflection point some decades ago. They are doing alright.
| They still innovate. In some respects it's stagnant, but
| that's not necessarily a bad thing. It does mean that
| offspring will not perpetually think "they will (potentially)
| earn more than their parents" and that's okay.
|
| We need to accelerate this in places that are still growing,
| slow them down but also modernize them.
|
| Asceticism may not be necessary, but it is a target. Like
| many targets it's one one may miss, but in going for it it
| reduces footprint.
| peteradio wrote:
| When I google asceticism I see a picture of a monk with rib
| bones sticking out, not too dissimilar from a mummy.
| ctoth wrote:
| It is an excellent thing, then, that we are not simply
| stuck on this Earth.
| Xelynega wrote:
| Oh yea, why criticize consumerism when we can just
| destroy planets and leave them behind to look for more
| resources to consume?
| yunwal wrote:
| That is interesting. How do you figure?
| tmtvl wrote:
| For practical purposes we are. At least for the
| foreseeable future. Yes, we can support a handful of
| people on a space station for a few months, but that's no
| long-term solution.
|
| Unless you mean we could simply run like Logan, which,
| while indeed a possible solution, is not a particularly
| attractive solution.
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| <<Unless you mean we could simply run like Logan, which,
| while indeed a possible solution, is not a particularly
| attractive solution.
|
| I will admit that I think Bill Burr put the issue of
| overpopulation in mainstream consciousness and I can't
| deny that I worry that the solutions ( or forced by
| circumstances -- war comes to mind ) proposed are
| unlikely to be pleasant for the globe as a whole.
|
| Still, in parent's defense, I am not seeing that stance
| in my interpretation of that post.
| falcor84 wrote:
| Is there some interesting connection between Bill Burr
| and Logan's Run that I'm not familiar with?
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| Not directly. It made me think of it, because of the
| premise of the movie ( utopian society based on killing
| off undesirable society members ).
|
| Bill Burr's running joke is that there is too many people
| in the world and if he was a dictator, he would be
| quietly depopulating the earth by sinking cruise ships (
| and help economy by building more cruise ships ), because
| people who use cruise ships are likely low value
| individuals ( paraphrasing for brevity ).
|
| The connection is there, but it is not apparent ( and not
| that many people these days are familiar with Logan's Run
| ).
| kiba wrote:
| _Endless growth is not attainable on this Earth. Japan hit
| the inflection point some decades ago. They are doing
| alright. They still innovate. In some respects it 's
| stagnant, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. It does
| mean that offspring will not perpetually think "they will
| (potentially) earn more than their parents" and that's
| okay._
|
| It depends on what you mean by this. But I think more
| growth is possible. The problem is negative externality.
| pyuser583 wrote:
| Why isn't endless growth attainable?
|
| It's like saying "we can't keep writing poems forever."
| Sure we can.
|
| Realistically, many poems will be forgotten.
|
| During my lifetime, we've probably forgotten/lost more
| poems than were written in all of history before my birth.
|
| But we can keep making them, just as we can keeping
| building parents and software and flux capacitors and warp
| drives.
|
| Why is there an inevitable limit, I truely don't
| understand.
| yunwal wrote:
| There are zero-sum portions of the economy (land, non-
| renewable resources), and expanding-sum portions.
| However, the laws of supply and demand dictate that as
| the marginal cost of producing a good approach zero, the
| cost goes down. This is why poetry is pretty much
| worthless in terms of money, despite providing value to
| many.
|
| The issue here is that "growth" is ambiguous, and right
| now is mostly defined as "GDP" or some other measure of
| money. Unfortunately, the nature of money is that zero-
| sum portions of the economy can get more expensive, but
| expanding-sum portions have a fundamental price limit.
| Therefore, if you define growth as "money", you can't
| have endless growth.
|
| Of course, you can have endless improvements to quality
| of life that don't involve constrained resources, it just
| won't increase GDP.
| slothtrop wrote:
| The first paragraph is all you need. Instances of consumerism
| that are a problem can be dampened through tax or other means,
| but it's a moot point because environmental encroachment scales
| with demand. If demand is stagnant (because the population is,
| and has already been lifted out of poverty enough to demand
| things), then there's no question of sustainability for
| basically anything, except certain finite resources. No one's
| going to care about the impact of travel if there 3-4 billion
| people instead of 8 billion.
| Xelynega wrote:
| It's all you "need" from one perspective, but if the topic is
| "the future our grandchildren deserve" than a criticism of
| consumerism that seeks to eradicate it is relevant(IMO) and
| isn't equivalent to minimizing it with "tax and other means".
| mc32 wrote:
| Even if we got the world pop to 1960s levels we cannot
| indefinitely consume and defile the environment. We need to
| exercise restraint despite our capacity or ability to do
| things.
| slothtrop wrote:
| People don't have an infinite capacity for consumption.
| That's why 1st world countries use immigration policy to
| boost the GDP (a reflection of consumption).
|
| Between gains in efficiency, renewables, etc the "need for
| restraint" has a ton of legroom if the population simply
| does not grow. The rise in emissions from the last couple
| of decades is largely owing to growing demand from China
| and other countries with an emerging middle class. Vaclav
| Smil makes this clear in a few of his books (e.g. How The
| World Really Works), you don't need to rely on conjecture
| if you just look at the numbers. Since it would be inhumane
| to demand that the 3rd world not make use of fossil fuels
| to improve their quality of life (including for instance
| ammonia for fertilizer), we can expect demand to continue
| growing.
|
| There's no reason to believe that, assuming a stable
| population, we would be relegated to conditions of
| asceticism in order to keep the planet habitable.
| lo_zamoyski wrote:
| > Provide [...] contraceptives to those with high reproduction
| rates
|
| This we should not do. First, Malthusians have always been
| wrong and I claim will continue to be wrong. Second,
| contraception encourages declining birth rates and low birth
| rates are destructive to societies. Third, contraception is
| intrinsically immoral because it frustrates and perverts the
| function of the sexual faculties (it's the analogue of
| bulimia). Fourth, contraception has the psychological effect of
| divorcing the intrinsic function of sexual intercourse from
| pleasure which results in a hedonistic view of sex, the
| objectification of people, and exploitative attitudes, among
| others. Not exactly a winning recipe for a healthy society. I
| would also emphasize the distinction between promotion and
| permissiveness; I am arguing against promotion only and a
| culture that normalizes its use as opposed to one that merely
| tolerates it.
|
| > (see China vs India)
|
| China is below replacement (1.70). India is at replacement
| (2.18). Fertility rates are low everywhere except Africa. I
| think Africa has had enough of philanthropic "interventions".
|
| > Practice secular (or religious) asceticism and be comfortable
| with that.
|
| You don't need to be ascetic. You just need to avoid
| prodigality and the consumerist vice of excessive
| acquisitiveness. Where clothing is concerned, prefer high
| quality, classic styles that last, even when they cost more
| upfront. Don't live beyond your means. Don't buy stuff you
| don't need or doesn't contribute real value to your life. Don't
| buy impulsively (unless you want to fill your garage with
| garbage). All these are just common sense.
| potatochup wrote:
| > Fourth, contraception has the psychological effect of
| divorcing the intrinsic function of sexual intercourse from
| pleasure which results in a hedonistic view of sex
|
| There is so much more to sex than procreation or pure
| hedonistic desire.
|
| What about infertile couples? Should they just not have sex
| because there is no hope of procreation? Gay couples?
| stefantalpalaru wrote:
| RunSet wrote:
| Our grandchildren deserve a future without the vendor lock-in and
| anticompetitive behavior that gave Bill Gates the fortune he is
| currently using to attempt to whitewash his legacy.
| abraae wrote:
| Bill gates was a ruthless competitor in business who pushed
| things to the limits, the original alpha geek. Not unlike
| thousands of other business leaders over the centuries.
|
| Holding a candle of bitterness against him so long after he
| moved on to an admirably altruistic life and actively
| redistributed his wealth says more about you than about him.
|
| (Spoken as someone who has experienced brutal commercial
| outcomes thanks to Microsoft shenanigans back in the day).
| PicassoCTs wrote:
| https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/12/business/jeffrey-
| epstein-...
|
| This guy deserves all the bitterness he can get. Here is the
| reason his wife divorced him. Now go and whorship somebody
| worthy.
| Xelynega wrote:
| Why is it that his "admirably altruistic life" never seems to
| conflict with what Microsoft's goals are, if the line is that
| he's "changed since he started Microsoft".
|
| If that were the case, wouldn't it make sense that his new
| "altruistic" ideals conflict with the "ruthless competitor"
| ideals that Microsoft holds?
| sbuk wrote:
| Two monks were walking when they met a swift but shallow
| stream that they needed to cross. There was a young woman
| stood on the bank who also needed to get across, but she
| was scared, so she asked the monks for help. The monks had
| taken vows of chastity which included never touching a
| woman and the younger monk refused. The other, older monk,
| picked up the young woman and carried her across, gently
| placing her down on the other side.
|
| As the two monks carried on with their journey in silence,
| the younger monk blurted out, "You took a vow of chastity!
| You promised never to touch a woman! How could you have
| just picked her up?"
|
| The older monk replied; "My brother, I put her down a few
| miles back. Why do you carry her still?"
| Xelynega wrote:
| The "why do you care" argument kind of falls on deaf ears
| when we all give our consent to discuss the contents of
| the article, and continue to give our consent as we
| actually reply to comments.
|
| If bill gates in the past was "ruthless" and Microsoft
| was born from that, then it's logically inconsistent to
| say "bill gates is a good person because of his altruism
| despite his ruthlessness in the past" since his current
| altruism does nothing to address that past ruthlessness.
| abraae wrote:
| Ruthless != Evil
| kulahan wrote:
| I hate how nobody can have a change of heart and do an INSANE
| AMOUNT OF GOOD without some goofball constantly needing to feel
| cool by pointing out they weren't _always_ doing good stuff.
|
| Who gives a shit about anticompetitive behavior in comparison
| to saving human lives from a preventable disease? Talk about
| missing the forest for the trees. It's so miserable to talk
| about positive actions these days, because it's verboten to
| focus on that when there are negatives to point out.
| swader999 wrote:
| Yeah, well there are those flight logs that tell a pretty
| disgraceful story.
| darkwater wrote:
| Sorry, never heard of this. What do you mean?
| lordfrito wrote:
| Nietzche said that altruism is the most mendacious form of
| egoism. Now that he's won the game, there's no doubt Gates is
| paying to rehabilitate his image.
|
| There's an overwhelming amount of evidence that Gates was a
| ruthless and all around terrible human being. For example,
| there's the story of how Gates tried to screw his partner
| Paul Allen (who working hard to deliver DOS 2.0 while also
| fighting cancer) out of his stake in the company. [1]
|
| In Paul's own words:
|
| _One evening in late December 1982, I heard Bill and Steve
| speaking heatedly in Bill's office and paused outside to
| listen in. It was easy to get the gist of the conversation.
| They were bemoaning my recent lack of production and
| discussing how they might dilute my Microsoft equity by
| issuing options to themselves and other shareholders. It was
| clear that they'd been thinking about this for some time._
|
| _Unable to stand it any longer, I burst in on them and
| shouted, "This is unbelievable! It shows your true character,
| once and for all." I was speaking to both of them, but
| staring straight at Bill. Caught red-handed, they were struck
| dumb. Before they could respond, I turned on my heel and
| left._
|
| Don't take my word on it, read up for yourself. I can't find
| any story from the early days of Microsoft that doesn't paint
| Gates in a positive light. His only skill was being insanely
| opportunistic.
|
| If if this the way Gates treats his friends, I don't want to
| hear about all of the good he's doing in the world. There are
| plenty of people in the world worth looking up to, Gates
| isn't one of those people.
|
| [1] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1371608/Bill-
| Gates-...
| Xelynega wrote:
| We're commenting on an article from the gates that
| essentially gives a plan for how to produce more Microsoft
| workers.
|
| What does a "high paying career" have to do with "the future
| our grandchildren deserve" unless the goal is to produce the
| future Bill Gates wants. The future our grandchildren deserve
| is one where they're not stratified by their income such that
| "high paying careers"(read: tech careers, which just so
| happen to be what bill gates company profits off an excess
| of) are the only path for them to be "successful".
|
| The idea that bill gates has done a "insane amount of good"
| is laughable because the "insane amount of good" he does for
| some reason never conflicts with the goals of Microsoft.
| "Missing the forest for the trees" would be ignoring the
| pattern of his decision and instead saying "he's done an
| insane amount of good, why are you criticizing him?"
| bcrosby95 wrote:
| You're looking at second order effects.
|
| These aren't changes of heart. They're worried about their
| legacy. How history will view them. The same thing driving
| people like him to donate and found charities is the same
| thing that drove him to behave the ways he did with
| Microsoft.
|
| I mean, good on him that he refocused his energies. But don't
| fool yourself into thinking he's changed.
| illuminerdy wrote:
| dang wrote:
| We've banned this account because it has been using HN
| primarily for ideological battle. That's not allowed here,
| regardless of which flavor your favor. It's not what this site
| is for, and destroys what it is for.
|
| Past explanations here: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dat
| eRange=all&type=comme.... Please don't create accounts to break
| HN's rules with.
| dgf49 wrote:
| What's wrong with you?
| dang wrote:
| Please don't respond to a bad comment by breaking the site
| guidelines yourself. That only makes everything worse.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| usedtoprog wrote:
| dgf49 wrote:
| Nothing - I don`t blame others for any conspiracy but try
| to do my best where I can instead. Thanks for asking.
| pseudo0 wrote:
| > Our work on education goes back to the foundation's earliest
| days, and our focus on improving math skills goes back almost as
| far. Although there are many factors that affect a student's
| trajectory, the evidence shows that it's extremely important for
| them to succeed in math. For example, those who pass Algebra I by
| ninth grade are twice as likely to graduate from high school and
| more likely to go on to college, get a bachelor's degree, and go
| on to a high-paying career. And those who don't complete Algebra
| I have just a one-in-five chance of graduating from high school.
|
| This looks a lot like correlation/causation confusion. Inability
| to understand basic algebra seems like it would be strongly
| correlated with learning disabilities or significantly below
| average IQ. Getting more students to squeak by with a barely
| passing grade won't fix those underlying issues.
| isthisthingon99 wrote:
| Not to offend you but it sounds like you've never taught an
| economically disadvantaged child. The first step is they need
| to feel that they can do it, already a tall order. Learning
| disabilities are not that relevant here.
| Xelynega wrote:
| It also looks like conflating "success" with "high-paying
| career". Most people would probably consider a high paying
| career success, but the idea that we're not even questioning
| that assumption when talking about children's education shows
| how it gets propogated.
| thefounder wrote:
| I wonder, why would you like your children to pursue a low
| paying career unless you are already relatively
| rich/financially "stable"? It's a great adventure to live on
| the edge when you are young but unfortunately we are not
| forever young. Add a wife, kids and a low paying job and the
| story gets dramatic. Not to mention any health issue.
| fuckHNtho wrote:
| dang wrote:
| Come on you guys, knock it off.
| 4qz wrote:
| dang wrote:
| I'm defending Hacker News, it's really just that simple.
|
| Can you please use the site as intended? It's only worth
| anything if it's interesting, and vandalizing it is just a
| way to destroy it for everybody. I'm sure you don't leave
| campfires burning in dry forests or toss your trash on the
| street. Why do the equivalent here?
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| bena wrote:
| If I'm going to be frank here, it's because you've
| already allowed the trash in the street.
|
| The allowance of certain subjects to be discussed,
| combined with some of the moderation policies ostensibly
| designed to quell flamewars, have given a certain segment
| of the population a license to think they can act like
| this.
|
| You bring the hammer down just as hard on people _also_
| trying to defend HN. And since those people want to play
| within the rules, those who don 't essentially take over.
| Because they have the time to do so.
|
| And they all fit a certain mold.
| dang wrote:
| I have little to no idea what you're referring to. I'd
| need to see specific links to what you're talking about.
| alfor wrote:
| newaccount2021 wrote:
| thesagan wrote:
| We should be thankful for people like Mr. Gates, he sets an
| example we should follow. Role models are powerful, and he is
| among the top.
| pstuart wrote:
| In philanthropy, yes. His personal conduct appears to not be so
| admirable.
| pyuser583 wrote:
| How important is that?
| yunwal wrote:
| It's very important in that by positioning his foundation
| as the largest global health provider in the world he could
| easily use it for nefarious or selfish means if he desired.
| It's very difficult to judge the motivation for Gates
| Foundation work on the foundation alone (for the same
| reason it's tough to judge the value of a VC-based startup
| by it's initial pricing scheme), so it's reasonable to look
| at his personal conduct to understand his motivations.
|
| I for one, am not super happy that half of the third world
| relies on a child rapists' friend to get their Malaria
| vaccines.
| Xelynega wrote:
| Considering that everyone has a chance to make personal
| decisions, but most people won't have the opportunity to
| make philanthropic decisions, can you see why the personal
| decisions someone makes are really the only thing important
| to get a measure of how good a role model they are.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-12-20 23:02 UTC)