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

Bill and Melinda Gates 2016 Annual Letter

gatesnotes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 151 posts

Re: Bill and Melinda Gates 2016 Annual Letter

#91

Post by eru »

Mikeb85 wrote: post #47

> A cheap, clean source of energy would change everything. Like nuclear fission? Or how about solar? Anyhow, while I think the intentions are good, my experience in 3rd world countries has me convinced that all the charity in the world won't help. In general, the problem in 3rd world countries isn't education, or sanitation, or lack of capital, or mosquito nets, etc... The problem is corruption and safety. I've seen…

The book `Just get out of the way' (http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=51...) addresses this topic. One point the author makes is that honest and competent government officials are one of the most scarce and valuable resources for a developing country, and thus institutions and laws should be designed to lighten their workload.

One example are insolvency laws.

In most countries, there are three options: creditors and debtors reach an agreement. Liquidation. And Administration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administration_(law)) ordered by court.

Administration is complicated, and requires complicated laws and competent and honest officials to administer the laws. So countries, especially poor ones, should not offer this alternative.

If the company is worth more alive than dead, creditors and debtors will come to an agreement. (Especially if you remove the alternative of administration, that gives the debtor an out, rendering the creditors threats toothless.)

Re: Bill and Melinda Gates 2016 Annual Letter

#92

Post by ant6n »

tryitnow wrote: post #57
Mikeb85 wrote: post #47

> A cheap, clean source of energy would change everything. Like nuclear fission? Or how about solar? Anyhow, while I think the intentions are good, my experience in 3rd world countries has me convinced that all the charity in the world won't help. In general, the problem in 3rd world countries isn't education, or sanitation, or lack of capital, or mosquito nets, etc... The problem is corruption and safety. I've seen…

I don't know if there's much that Gates can do about corruption. That's something that might have to take it's natural course and weed itself out (like it has partly done in the US and other developed nations). In the mean time I think Gates wants to do something rather than nothing and things like mosquito nets apparently do save lives. The people whose lives are saved may not be able to prosper, but they're most li…

Corruption in the US seems to be getting worse too. Also other first world countries.

Re: Bill and Melinda Gates 2016 Annual Letter

#93

Post by dredmorbius »

zajd wrote: post #45
dredmorbius wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

False premisis: it's not the safest method (see SSREN, the IPCC's study of carbon-neutral energy generation). It is safer than fossil fuel generation, but not solar and wind, nor, in Europe and America, hydro (India and especially China have had some spectacular hydro failures). More specifically, when nuclear works well, it works very, very well. When it fails, however, it fails especially spectacularly.

Actually, it is http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-de...

That's not accessible.

As I said: IPCC's SRREN gives mortality/GWh statistics, and nuclear is not the safest, by that measure. Data included Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, but not Fukushima.

Actually, I've previously discussed both here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/267e5e/what_are...

NB: Conca is a rather partisan pro-nuclear advocate. I've found his credibility wanting and bias quite evident in past.

The IPCC's report: http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/

Risks are in one of the appendixes (I'm not on a device which makes sorting this out trivial at the moment).

Re: Bill and Melinda Gates 2016 Annual Letter

#94

Post by tim333 »

crackpotbaker wrote: post #35

I'm surprised Gates, for all his work in this field, has failed to recognise that we're burning up more food growing cattle and farming animals, than if we were to just eat the plant resources we use to feed the animals. It's mathematically crazy that, during a mass shortage of food in some parts of the world, we're feeding a net loss of food in order to eat animal produce. He's even insane enough to support getting…

>during a mass shortage of food in some parts of the world

Do we have mass shortages at the moment? As opposed to some people being hungry because they are out of cash.

Re: Bill and Melinda Gates 2016 Annual Letter

#95

Post by justinhj »

Mikeb85 wrote: post #47

> A cheap, clean source of energy would change everything. Like nuclear fission? Or how about solar? Anyhow, while I think the intentions are good, my experience in 3rd world countries has me convinced that all the charity in the world won't help. In general, the problem in 3rd world countries isn't education, or sanitation, or lack of capital, or mosquito nets, etc... The problem is corruption and safety. I've seen…

Isn't this a chicken and egg problem? Corruption generally thrives where people are poor. In the normal course of their daily lives the government cannot save them from starving or from disease. So with no legitimate safety net you may have to fall to crime to keep your family healthy and fed. Maybe you rob someone, or maybe you take bribes at work. If a charity comes in and provides what you need it is no longer an easy choice to fall to crime. I'm not naive enough to think it's this simple at all, but you do have to start somewhere.

Re: Bill and Melinda Gates 2016 Annual Letter

#96

Post by prawn »

alexashka wrote: post #85
prawn wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How did you so thoroughly miss their point and intent?

Passive aggressive rhetorical questions huh... On forums and in real life, it is best to avoid inviting a punch to the face. You must have grown up without getting hurt, like Bill and Melinda Gates :) See how perhaps it is you missing my point but thinking I am missing theirs? Now one way to settle this is for you to tell me what you think their point and intent is, that way we can move past me explaining your privil…

I gave you a rhetorical question assuming that it might help you re-read both the link and your comment to see why you were being downvoted. If you read what they wrote and instead raise obese Americans, I'm not sure how I can encourage you to see the point.

For one thing, Melinda was talking a lot about technology and even just proximity to clean water as being a huge opportunity for people in Africa to save time and spend it on education or health.

I'll leave this conversation there. Not sure that comments about punching people in the face having any place on Hacker News.

Re: Bill and Melinda Gates 2016 Annual Letter

#97

Post by wbc »

dredmorbius wrote: post #93
zajd wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, it is http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-de...

That's not accessible. As I said: IPCC's SRREN gives mortality/GWh statistics, and nuclear is not the safest, by that measure. Data included Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, but not Fukushima. Actually, I've previously discussed both here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/267e5e/what_are... NB: Conca is a rather partisan pro-nuclear advocate. I've found his credibility wanting and bias quite evident in pa…

the report is 1088 pages and has appendices everywhere, can you point out where you found the risk comparison? A ctr-f for risk finds 511 uses

Re: Bill and Melinda Gates 2016 Annual Letter

#98

Post by Saikia »

"...I feel very lucky and blessed that drstanleyspelltemple@hotmail.com were able to turn my marriage around like this with his powerful spell. My husband used to spend as much time as he could away from home with other women. Since he cast the love spell on him, My husband is now so in love with me and committed to our marriage than before. its so funny that my husband had not go out for weeks now!"

Re: Bill and Melinda Gates 2016 Annual Letter

#99

Post by themartorana »

justinhj wrote: post #95
Mikeb85 wrote: post #47

> A cheap, clean source of energy would change everything. Like nuclear fission? Or how about solar? Anyhow, while I think the intentions are good, my experience in 3rd world countries has me convinced that all the charity in the world won't help. In general, the problem in 3rd world countries isn't education, or sanitation, or lack of capital, or mosquito nets, etc... The problem is corruption and safety. I've seen…

Isn't this a chicken and egg problem? Corruption generally thrives where people are poor. In the normal course of their daily lives the government cannot save them from starving or from disease. So with no legitimate safety net you may have to fall to crime to keep your family healthy and fed. Maybe you rob someone, or maybe you take bribes at work. If a charity comes in and provides what you need it is no longer an…

Is it people are poor, or poor in comparison to the appetites of the ruling class? I look at Russia - not rich, per se, but not exactly Third World - but corruption there is as open as it can be. But even if Russia has a majority "First World" middle class, the appetites of the ruling class are in the billions of dollars. The difference between the middle class and the oligarchy is probably more dichotomous than in third world nations.

Re: Bill and Melinda Gates 2016 Annual Letter

#100

Post by rurounijones »

kuschku wrote: post #61
Mikeb85 wrote: post #47

> A cheap, clean source of energy would change everything. Like nuclear fission? Or how about solar? Anyhow, while I think the intentions are good, my experience in 3rd world countries has me convinced that all the charity in the world won't help. In general, the problem in 3rd world countries isn't education, or sanitation, or lack of capital, or mosquito nets, etc... The problem is corruption and safety. I've seen…

Nuclear Fission? Safe? As long as for-profit companies are running the reactors, they’ll end up saving everywhere, and, like we’ve seen before and before, it ends up in meltdowns (for example, due to refusing to maintain the emergency generators properly, see fukushima). Any way you try to handle this issue, someone will abuse it. Make it a governmentally funded operation, people will end up corrupt and use money for…

> As long as for-profit companies are running the reactors, they’ll end up saving everywhere, and, like we’ve seen before and before, it ends up in meltdowns (for example, due to refusing to maintain the emergency generators properly, see fukushima).

Counter-point: See Onagawa - http://thebulletin.org/onagawa-japanese-nuclear-power-plant-...

Post reply on HN