Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Inside Bill’s Brain

netflix.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 101 posts

Re: Inside Bill’s Brain

#61

Post by gist »

joezydeco wrote: post #18
shadypupper wrote: post #17

I tried to watch it, but it just felt like a 'Bill Gates' public profile PR piece. Basically just espousing how great Bill and his family are and were at all points in history.

I regularly get downvoted for pointing out that Saint Bill the Philanthropist refuses to acknowledge all the shitty behavior and the damage he left behind to earn him that fortune in the first place.

Agree but it's more than that. I would point out to any young people reading and watching things like this to keep this in mind. If Bill Gates wasn't a very visible Billionaire and one in particular who had a history in the computer business you wouldn't really care much what he thought. Let alone listen to him. The 'very visible' definitely matters, sure. But also the fact that he is 'rich' like any and all utterances by rich or successful people (even in things they aren't skilled at) what they say appears way more valuable than it actually is and when compared to someone who has not had luck play into their success.

There is no way to 'grab the brass ring' by reading or watching this type of documentary. Understand it for what it is. It's entertainment pure and simple.

To your point 'shitty behavior' absolutely true. The amount of anxiety and aggravation that OS and some of those business practices caused is rarely talked about. In this case making money was tied to having a bad product in part not a good product that people loved. The entire eco system was dependent on convincing users they didn't know enough and needed help to get it to actually continue functioning.

Re: Inside Bill’s Brain

#62

Post by Scoundreller »

BubRoss wrote: post #56
Scoundreller wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s unfortunate that they were ready to build the TerraPower pilot nuclear plant in China and the recent trade war prevented it. In the interim, I’m hoping for cheap micro gas turbines. Burning natural gas just for heat is senseless when I could generate all my electricity with its combustion too seems like such a waste.

I'm now surprised I have never thought about that. What is the reason this isn't common?

It's been increasingly scaled down. But not quite to the point of being done residentially.

Places like hospitals have installed multi-megawatt turbines because it saves them the cost of standby backup generators, instead they can use the grid as backup for their internal generation.

https://www.toromontpowersystems.com/electric-power/products...

Also, heating loads residentially may be bigger than electric loads, but grid-intertie system can resolve that.

Re: Inside Bill’s Brain

#63

Post by mjfl »

joezydeco wrote: post #18
shadypupper wrote: post #17

I tried to watch it, but it just felt like a 'Bill Gates' public profile PR piece. Basically just espousing how great Bill and his family are and were at all points in history.

I regularly get downvoted for pointing out that Saint Bill the Philanthropist refuses to acknowledge all the shitty behavior and the damage he left behind to earn him that fortune in the first place.

It's because saving children's lives by providing misquito netting far outweighs bullying his competitors building the earliest web browsers.

Re: Inside Bill’s Brain

#64

Post by Holden83z »

My problem with the documentary series is that they gave Bill Gates credit for inventing DOS. This starts at 34:00 in episode two.

There was no mention at all that Microsoft bought it. https://www.windowscentral.com/microsoft-bought-ms-dos-os-ea...

This happens frequently in business and tech. CEOs look like geniuses when they can take credit for the work of others.

Re: Inside Bill’s Brain

#65

Post by pfortuny »

jasoneckert wrote: post #40

I'm not a fan of documentaries, but I liked this one (all three parts). It's Bill essentially saying "You know - this is what matters, the Microsoft stuff is secondary." And I respect that. The Steve Jobs documentaries were more like "Hey, this guy was a douche, but people worship the cult he made from peddling computer stuff, and that is good, right?" Definitely a difference in approach.

Surprisingly, the MS stuff (the way he got as rich as he is now) is mostly illegal in the way he took advantage of his business... He does not seem to acknowledge this anywhere...

Re: Inside Bill’s Brain

#66

Post by CriticalCathed »

tempsy wrote: post #58
Reedx wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is being rewritten exactly? I don't see where they are claiming Microsoft didn't happen.

I’m commenting on OP’s respect for someone using his money and influence to release a documentary where he writes off that one time he broke the law to crush his competitors as “secondary” to his charitable work. It’s especially interesting since we’re becoming acutely aware of how the rich regularly wash their reputations through charitable work e.g. Epstein and the Sacklers. Only the wealthy get to influence the pu…

Most people don't have a public perception to need to influence at all, so I don't think it's a fair comparison or criticism. I'm sure if you were a public figure you'd spend a minimum of effort to make sure you were perceived as you thought you should be.

Re: Inside Bill’s Brain

#67

Post by hogFeast »

tempsy wrote: post #58
Reedx wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is being rewritten exactly? I don't see where they are claiming Microsoft didn't happen.

I’m commenting on OP’s respect for someone using his money and influence to release a documentary where he writes off that one time he broke the law to crush his competitors as “secondary” to his charitable work. It’s especially interesting since we’re becoming acutely aware of how the rich regularly wash their reputations through charitable work e.g. Epstein and the Sacklers. Only the wealthy get to influence the pu…

Many of the things that he is doing also have huge political implications.

From the U.S. that isn't obvious. Some wealthy guy can dole out cash but the system is stable, so that is fine. Outside of the U.S. the opposite is true. Wealthy guy comes in and starts handing out cash, and that occurs within a political context (which is often the issue: these places often don't lack money or tech, what they lack is stable politics). Even something as simple as building hospital or a library is huge politically (i.e. what contractors and suppliers you choose).

Given Gates' record for disregarding law, there should definitely be far greater oversight from home governments. One cautionary tale is Soros in Russia: he believed, even after he worked out that Yeltsin was horribly corrupt, that he could keep donating to "neutral" causes...this turned out to be quite wrong (as Soros has admitted). And Soros is many times smarter than Gates about these issues, and at that time was choosing donations personally (I have not heard great things about the "disciples" that Gates has on the ground).

Again, this is really something that Gates should not be in a position to do. You can't just outsource foreign policy to wealthy people.

Re: Inside Bill’s Brain

#68

Post by tempsy »

CriticalCathed wrote: post #66
tempsy wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m commenting on OP’s respect for someone using his money and influence to release a documentary where he writes off that one time he broke the law to crush his competitors as “secondary” to his charitable work. It’s especially interesting since we’re becoming acutely aware of how the rich regularly wash their reputations through charitable work e.g. Epstein and the Sacklers. Only the wealthy get to influence the pu…

Most people don't have a public perception to need to influence at all, so I don't think it's a fair comparison or criticism. I'm sure if you were a public figure you'd spend a minimum of effort to make sure you were perceived as you thought you should be.

I’m not critiquing Bill Gates’s decision to influence the public’s perception of his legacy. I’m commenting on how absurd it is to consume what can be considered propaganda and seem to come out the other side with more “respect” for the subject without the awareness that the whole point of the “documentary” was to do exactly that.

Re: Inside Bill’s Brain

#69

Post by [deleted] »

joezydeco wrote: post #18
shadypupper wrote: post #17

I tried to watch it, but it just felt like a 'Bill Gates' public profile PR piece. Basically just espousing how great Bill and his family are and were at all points in history.

I regularly get downvoted for pointing out that Saint Bill the Philanthropist refuses to acknowledge all the shitty behavior and the damage he left behind to earn him that fortune in the first place.

[deleted]

Re: Inside Bill’s Brain

#70

Post by laurencerowe »

adventured wrote: post #39
JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question is do we need nuclear and the risks? Can renewables like wind, hydro, and solar provide what we need cheaper and without the dangers associated with nuclear? If so, then why even mess with it?

It makes enormous sense to have some diversity in the electrical generation system, along with the essentially guaranteed & dependable output of nuclear. It's an excellent backbone. The US could very easily get to 30% renewables (17-18% now), 30% nuclear (19%-20% now), 40% natural gas (35%-36% now), from where the figures are at today. That ends coal. Then push forward on reducing the natural gas share thereafter. 30…

$10B seems cheap. Hinkley Point C is currently estimated at $25B.
Post reply on HN