Bezos donates $100M each to CNN contributor Van Jones and chef Jose Andres • Hacker News Board

Re: Bezos donates $100M each to CNN contributor Van Jones and chef Jose Andres

#731

Post by jfoutz » Thu, Jul 22, 2021, 4:59 AM UTC

cwkoss wrote: post #547

superfrank wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're correct, but that doesn't really change the point I was trying to make Since you've edited your post, I'll respond to the rest. > But they're also just carnival rides for Billionaires, and that's what gets on peoples nerves. If Bezos or Branson had sent someone else up in their place, does that really change anything? Sure, it's expensive and only the super wealthy can afford to go into space right now, but th…

Neither Bezos or Branson achieved orbital velocities, which is the minimum bar for doing useful things related to space. It really is just a carnival ride - it's not about who's in it, its that they didn't actually achieve anything: what they built has no utility except as a dick-measuring contest. Orbit is a little bit of upwards velocity and a whole lot of sideways velocity. They only did the much simpler former. T…

Well, a little bit of sideways could sure speed up intercontinental travel. Sure, could be a rich person toy. I’d imagine sometimes it’s useful to move a rare thing halfway around the world very quickly.

Re: Bezos donates $100M each to CNN contributor Van Jones and chef Jose Andres

#732

Post by simooooo » Thu, Jul 22, 2021, 5:03 AM UTC

IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: post #229

ErneX wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s hedonistic? this is a business. There’s money to be made on space, be it via a fancy rollercoaster now or mining or who knows what else in the future. It is inevitable.

They, minus Musk but plus Carmack, aren’t in it for the money. It’s no coincidence that they all chose the same field to work in, which happens to be one 9-year old boys tend to be fascinated by. And it isn’t because it’s such a good opportunity only they have a chance to succeed on, or we’d see plenty of large companies or a few unicorn startups trying as well. That doesn’t mean they will never get some revenue, may…

Because the thoughts of a 9 year old and an adult can never overlap?

Re: Bezos donates $100M each to CNN contributor Van Jones and chef Jose Andres

#733

Post by ramesh31 » Thu, Jul 22, 2021, 5:14 AM UTC

So billionaires are upvoting people IRL now

Re: Bezos donates $100M each to CNN contributor Van Jones and chef Jose Andres

#734

Post by daseiner1 » Thu, Jul 22, 2021, 5:25 AM UTC

ramesh31 wrote: post #375

mucholove wrote: post #363

Dudes and dudettes. Before you ask for higher taxes—hear me out. First, recognize the trajectory. Bezos is the definition of someone living out the American dream. The corporate interest may be trending towards a monopoly—but this is a guy who was abandoned by his biological father, adopted by an immigrant, and was able to use his skills, smarts and efforts to achieve the easiest way for me to buy something. Second—f…

>and was able to use his skills, smarts and efforts to achieve the easiest way for me to buy something. And a small loan of $200,000 from his parents. Also that.

that is a small loan

Re: Bezos donates $100M each to CNN contributor Van Jones and chef Jose Andres

#735

Post by machinelearning » Thu, Jul 22, 2021, 5:34 AM UTC

hemloc_io wrote: post #138

Zelphyr wrote: post #9

All the critics lobbing cynicism against Bezos, Branson, and Musk saying, in essence, that their money is better spent here at home reminds me of a wonderful scene from The West Wing when one character asks why we have to go to Mars: "'Cause it's next. For we came out of the cave, and we looked over the hill, and we saw fire. And we crossed the ocean, and we pioneered the West, and we took to the sky. The history of…

I don't think it's really fair to lump Bezos, Branson, and Musk into the same bucket. Musk, for all his flaws, started an actual rocket company with new and frankly insane tech. Bezos and especially Branson's ventures feel much more like personal vanity projects than something that will actually push space exploration. I mean Blue Origin has been running for 20 years and the best we have from them is flights that wer…

The truth is that there 100% isn't anything morally wrong with:

1. Building a rocket company

2. Being a billionaire

3. Going on a flight on a rocket your company built

The issue stems from how the optics of these 3 lumped together appears to the masses.

To the people who are struggling everyday to make a living, it says: "Hey look at how much of a baller I am, I just went to space and you didn't"

Obviously, investing many personnel hours, pain and billions of dollars into a venture just for a "personal vanity project" is absurd and key driver behind these ventures is probably a desire to build the future.

However, most people don't have the luxury to worry about building the future when they're living paycheck to paycheck.

It is difficult to explain how the pie grows and everyone is better off (even if the inventors are the best off) as we invest in technology. The only solution to prevent public backlash to innovation is to make everyone well off enough to want to invest in building the future (and better PR, Jeff Bezos shame on you).

Re: Bezos donates $100M each to CNN contributor Van Jones and chef Jose Andres

#736

Post by stubish » Thu, Jul 22, 2021, 5:39 AM UTC

elil17 wrote: post #561

jamesgreenleaf wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Earth is going to die one day. The Sun will die too. There is no guarantee that intelligent life will survive on this single planet, even if we do a perfect job of taking care of it. Catastrophic, species-killing events can happen at any time. If we wish to ensure the long-term survival of the only intelligent life in the universe that we know about (as well as the survival of all the other creatures on Earth, wh…

>but that it should be our primary goal is extremely clear It’s not extremely clear to me. Why is long term survival more important than making life better for more people? Wouldn’t it be reasonable to prefer to belong to a species that took care of it’s entire population and lived in harmony with the environment than one that avoided extinction, no matter the cost? Also, why would space be the best way to survive an…

If we don't spread to the stars, our entire species will have made absolutely no impact for better or worse on the galaxy or Universe. None whatsoever, no matter how beautiful or horrific our existence on this planet. Unless some more proactive species picks up our 'I Love Lucy' episodes and decides to remember us. Some of us hope for there to be some meaning to our sentience, or at least put off the long night a few trillion years more if the Universe is going to go dark and there is no escape.

Re: Bezos donates $100M each to CNN contributor Van Jones and chef Jose Andres

#737

Post by jimkleiber » Thu, Jul 22, 2021, 5:40 AM UTC

nyokodo wrote: post #192

hemloc_io wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's really fair to lump Bezos, Branson, and Musk into the same bucket. Musk, for all his flaws, started an actual rocket company with new and frankly insane tech. Bezos and especially Branson's ventures feel much more like personal vanity projects than something that will actually push space exploration. I mean Blue Origin has been running for 20 years and the best we have from them is flights that wer…

> Lumping them all together feels like we're giving out participation trophies. In defense of Branson his other space company Virgin Orbit now does orbital launches also, and has cool capabilities that genuinely differentiate it from other providers. We'll see if Bezos catches up, he's personally focusing on it more now and may make faster progress on New Glenn etc.

I agree, I have a friend who worked on early designs for Virgin Galactic and he talks about many of the differences (and benefits) of the Virgin design over Blue Origin and SpaceX.

Re: Bezos donates $100M each to CNN contributor Van Jones and chef Jose Andres

#738

Post by anigbrowl » Thu, Jul 22, 2021, 5:50 AM UTC

ironrabbit wrote: post #118

cassac wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It deserves cynicism. If he wasn’t a jerk he’d just pay his employees more and maybe pay some taxes. When everyone is fair upfront they don’t need to give us free turkeys on thanksgiving we can buy our own.

Genuine question because I'm out of the loop: it looks to me like the "Bezos doesn't pay taxes" argument is just pointing out that most of his wealth sits in unrealized gains in amazon stock. When he sells stock, he pays taxes. Is there more to it that I'm missing? Is the prevailing argument that we should be paying taxes on unrealized capital gains?

From an ethical rather than a legal standpoint, I'd argue that when you use stock as collateral to secure a loan you are in fact realizing a gain. This is a common practice and the stockholders then deduct the coast of loan service from the tax liability that they do incur. It's kind of a racket.

Re: Bezos donates $100M each to CNN contributor Van Jones and chef Jose Andres

#739

Post by Justin_K » Thu, Jul 22, 2021, 5:52 AM UTC

dumbfoundded wrote: post #405

jimbokun wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given current level of disfunction in the US government, I'll take Bezos just picking who he thinks can do the most good with the money.

It's a classic conservative strategy. Take over a government program, run it into the ground, use it as evidence that governments don't work, and then run for office on a platform of dismantling the broken government. The essential problem with the idea of government is that it requires people to cooperate in good faith. People who say government doesn't work are essentially arguing that people cannot cooperate with…

Take the CA DMV, long run into the ground by liberal officials. Should it just remain that way?

Re: Bezos donates $100M each to CNN contributor Van Jones and chef Jose Andres

#740

Post by sidcool » Thu, Jul 22, 2021, 5:56 AM UTC

hemloc_io wrote: post #138

Zelphyr wrote: post #9

All the critics lobbing cynicism against Bezos, Branson, and Musk saying, in essence, that their money is better spent here at home reminds me of a wonderful scene from The West Wing when one character asks why we have to go to Mars: "'Cause it's next. For we came out of the cave, and we looked over the hill, and we saw fire. And we crossed the ocean, and we pioneered the West, and we took to the sky. The history of…

I don't think it's really fair to lump Bezos, Branson, and Musk into the same bucket. Musk, for all his flaws, started an actual rocket company with new and frankly insane tech. Bezos and especially Branson's ventures feel much more like personal vanity projects than something that will actually push space exploration. I mean Blue Origin has been running for 20 years and the best we have from them is flights that wer…

I think Bezos and Branson are just lagging Musk in execution. But that does not mean theirs are vanity projects. In the long run, Bezos plans to create a platform like AWS for space launch. And it's OK if it happens by 2025 or 2030. SpaceX, for all the wonderful things it has achieved, won't be able to cater to all space launch requirements. There needs to be a competition.