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

My new deadline: 20 years to give away virtually all my wealth

gatesnotes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

491–500 of 704 posts

Re: My new deadline: 20 years to give away virtually all my wealth

#491

Post by toast0 »

999900000999 wrote: post #236
bombcar wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In no way would I want to downplay Gates' effect on the industry (though I personally think it was much more in the 80s and early 90s than in the heyday of the 2000s) I think people would have built computers without him, and its possible that we would have been better off overall in a world where the Amiga won, not the IBM PC, or the Mac, etc. Gates is more notable for NOT Netscaping or Sunning or Lotus-123ing his c…

I don't see computers being widely adapted without Microsoft deciding to essentially give Windows away to OEMs. Of course this was anti competitive, but it was a massive net good. The point is computers became extremely cheap. We're at the point where you can get a used laptop for 100$, install Linux on it and write code to your hearts content. The only thing limiting you is your own skill set. I don't think computer…

> I don't see computers being widely adapted without Microsoft deciding to essentially give Windows away to OEMs.

I'm not sure how making the OEMs pay for a license on all the computers they sold (and report on those numbers), regardless of what was installed is 'essentially giving away'. Yes, the OEM price was a lot lower than the retail price, but OEM versions came without direct support, and at least for large OEMs, without all of the trappings of retail (wholesalers/distributors/cross marketing expenses/shelf rental/etc)

Re: My new deadline: 20 years to give away virtually all my wealth

#493

Post by toast0 »

brutuscat wrote: post #452

Nice! And with what he will be left he could, if he deploys it also during 20y, help 1200 people per month. With 1k daily give aways. https://ayudaefectiva.org/simula Or with 10k daily, 310k monthly, adjusted by historical inflation it’s 100 million during 20 years. That’s 3 million people helped.

I've been getting email for 3 decades about Bill Gates giving away his money like this.

Re: My new deadline: 20 years to give away virtually all my wealth

#494

Post by xienze »

abound wrote: post #411
yodsanklai wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My issue with Gates is that he wants to fight climate change, yet he's personally an environmental disaster with his yachts and jets. I'm not saying he has to live like a monk to be credible, and maybe his foundation is doing a good job (never looked into it), but either he's an hypocrite, or I disagree with him on how to fight climate change.

I think it's pretty clearly hypocritical, but also if his actions are (far) more than offsetting his own emissions and impact, it's still a net positive. Of course, he could choose to not live a super-high consumption lifestyle in addition to his climate philanthopy, but if I had to take one or the other, I'd rather him continue throwing money at climate work than take fewer private jet rides.

But... he could easily do both. This is why I have such a hard time taking anything said about climate change seriously from the likes of Gore, Gates, and celebrities. They don’t practice what they preach.

And it’s not like we’re talking about some huge sacrifices here. Go from a 50K sqft house to a “modest” 10k sqft one. Don’t sail around on personal yachts. Fly commercial. Use Zoom. Simple stuff that would give them a lot more credibility. As it is, it’s a whole lot of “do as I say, not as I do.”

Re: My new deadline: 20 years to give away virtually all my wealth

#496

Post by 9rx »

njdas wrote: post #427
9rx wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can fund the people (government) or you can fund specific people whim whom you have an intimate trust (friends). The only other choices are to fund yourself or nobody, neither of which are applicable here. Not sure why that is so hard to reconcile.

You are framing it as a binary "you either fund the government or only your friends." You really believe there is no in between? You are framing this as if you're on some high ground and we either have to agree with your opinion or we are selfish. There are other ways to advance humanity than your opinions. Government is not some benevolent entity. The supposition that it is has no basis in data from present reality…

> Government is not some benevolent entity.

Of course not. It's quite literally just the people. If you cannot trust the people with your charitable donations, but still wish to donate to a person, then you're going to have to narrow that down to the specific person you can trust (i.e. your friends). There is no in-between.

Re: My new deadline: 20 years to give away virtually all my wealth

#497

Post by im3w1l »

abound wrote: post #411
yodsanklai wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My issue with Gates is that he wants to fight climate change, yet he's personally an environmental disaster with his yachts and jets. I'm not saying he has to live like a monk to be credible, and maybe his foundation is doing a good job (never looked into it), but either he's an hypocrite, or I disagree with him on how to fight climate change.

I think it's pretty clearly hypocritical, but also if his actions are (far) more than offsetting his own emissions and impact, it's still a net positive. Of course, he could choose to not live a super-high consumption lifestyle in addition to his climate philanthopy, but if I had to take one or the other, I'd rather him continue throwing money at climate work than take fewer private jet rides.

I think it matters how it's done. If someone has super high consumption but also invests in clean energy to save the climate that's cool by be. If someone has super high consumption but also invests money into lobbying to deny the lower classes access to consumption as a means of saving the climate I would resent that person.

Re: My new deadline: 20 years to give away virtually all my wealth

#498

Post by delusional »

qingcharles wrote: post #484
nostromo wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worked there and would encourage you not to do that. It'd be smarter to see who they are giving money to (which is all public) and give directly to those orgs. The Gates foundation itself spends a lot of money on consultants, "government engagement" (aka lobbying by another name), and fancy dinners. That's fine or maybe even noble for a family foundation, but it's probably not something individuals would want to fu…

Lobbying is ugly, but essential in the system we live in. You have to be pragmatic about it :(

That depends on what you are lobbying for. I don't think we have to treat all lobbying the same.

Re: My new deadline: 20 years to give away virtually all my wealth

#499

Post by JumpCrisscross »

PaulRobinson wrote: post #490
jncfhnb wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Red Cross is not equipped to make effective use of all that money at once

Says who? They can (ethically) invest it and fund programs off a 5%-8% or better return. They can find new things to do. They can donate some of it into health research that is currently under-funded.

> They can (ethically) invest it and fund programs off a 5%-8% or better return

They can also lose or squander it. One of the Gates Foundation’s value adds is monitoring.

Re: My new deadline: 20 years to give away virtually all my wealth

#500

Post by JumpCrisscross »

SteveNuts wrote: post #473
reaperducer wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. He doesn't need 20 years. That's just him trying to draw attention to himself. If he was really serious about giving away his money, he could write a single check to the Red Cross || Doctors Without Borders || insert charity here and in five minutes be done with it. The world doesn't need more vanity charities. It needs its existing charities to be better funded.

That much wealth could probably fund every food bank in the country indefinitely, even at extremely conservative returns.

> That much wealth could probably fund every food bank in the country indefinitely

That seems like an incredibly stupid way to spend money that has been eradicating diseases and saving lives in countries where food insecurity isn’t a choice.

Post reply on HN