So I just read Bill Gates' 1976 Open Letter To Hobbyists, in which he whines about not making more money from his software. You know, instead of being proud of making software that people wanted to use. And then the bastard went on and made proprietary licences for software the industry standard, holding back innovation and freedom for decades. What a douche canoe.
269 Comments
fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works · 262 pts · 250d
AstraZenica COVID vaccine was going to be opensource but he used with weight as a donor to pressure the university to sell it to a firm he had ownership instead
Maerman@lemmy.world · 85 pts · 250d
I read about that, yeah. All hail Mammon; money above all. Sometimes I think wealth changes something in a person's brain, like psychologically or neurologically. It's as if they get so detached from reality that they lose all empathy and sense of community. I've heard the term 'affluenza' used as a joke, but the more I think about it, the more it makes sense as a legitimate thing.
jol@discuss.tchncs.de · 97 pts · 250d
It takes a certain kind of personality to even become a billionaire. You don't become a billionaire by being kind and ethical
avidamoeba@lemmy.ca · 27 pts · 250d
I think there's research to that effect.
Maerman@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 250d
Well, it would make sense. Rich people have always creeped me out, just instinctively.
Townlately@feddit.nl · 7 pts · 250d
I'm sure the threshold varies, but I would back research that attempts to pinpoint or at least narrow down what amount of wealth starts to change your brain chemistry for the worse.
reagansrottencorpse@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 247d
I saw something recently that suggested their brain scans look similar to serial killers.
fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works · 19 pts · 250d
Its any position of power in my experience. People get power, justifying in their mind that they and people like them should be in power. Even games about being in charge run into that problem. Maintaining power becomes a major part of the game at some part.
Maerman@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 250d
That's a good point, as illustrated by things like the Stanford Prison Experiment.
supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz · 4 pts · 249d
That experiment was massively flawed to the point of uselessness.
No1@aussie.zone · 3 pts · 249d
That's exactly what a rich and powerful squirrel would say.
SinAdjetivos@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 250d
Also the issue of you need to be a deranged psychopath to get wealthy in the first place.
FlyingCircus@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 250d
There’s plenty of wealthy people who aren’t psychopaths, but they are all broken in some way. Usually it’s because capitalism has completely alienated them from our natural communal instincts and taught them that the individual is god. Many are capable of empathy, they just choose to do the selfish thing because they’ve been told their entire lives that “taking care of number one” is a virtue.
Of course, the impacts of their behavior are the same as if they were psychopaths, so this isn’t me excusing them. But it’s important to know what capitalism does to people and how it requires us to ignore our natural instincts, because the wealthy (the ones capable of empathy, anyways) are the same as the rest of us, only luckier.
IronBird@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 250d
as someone who recently escaped the labor trap (that is what capitalists call it...wages are suppressed for a reason...), the shift from needing to work and not is...profound.
no wonder so many rich cunts are batshit psychopaths, nobody born into $ can ever truly know this feeling of relief (and the resulting stress, just from your brain leaving "survival mode"...hierarchy of needs stuff, then realizing just how fucked everything is, how powerless you still are even as new-rich to change anything...)
LaLuzDelSol@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 250d
No, I don't think that's accurate. Oxford Unkversity was going to waive their rights to the vaccine, and Gates pressured them to instead partner with Astra-Zeneca. But to my knowledge Gates never profited from that deal. Now, was there still some shady backroom dealing going on? Very possibly.
kffhealthnews.org/news/rather-than-give-away-its-covid-vaccine-oxford-makes-a-deal-with-drugmaker/amp/
dreadbeef@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 18 pts · 250d
who cares if he didnt profit? "I convinced this man to make money off of the sick and he did it and profited off of a global contamination, but at least I also didnt get a kickback right? He was just gonna give it away the fuckin idiot!"
such a swell dude. totally not a shitbag human
LaLuzDelSol@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 249d
Listen m8 all I do is try to do is stop the spread of misinformation. If X thing is just as bad as Y... just say he did X thing. No need to embellish the story.
Saapas@piefed.zip · 6 pts · 249d
I care when someone claims that they did. It's important to gets the facts straight imo. They commenter you're replying to didn't imply Gates was a good guy or something.
dreadbeef@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 249d
fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 249d
https://investorplace.com/2024/03/billionaires-biotech-bets-3-stocks-dominating-bill-gates-portfolio/
He, through his foundation, own a significant portion of AstraZenica.
LaLuzDelSol@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 248d
Where do you see that? That isn't anywhere in your link. The only reference to AZ is that they partnered with one of the companies that Gates invested in.
fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 247d
His foundation owns stocks in Immunocore who is an Astra partner.
Edit: immunocore does not own Astra that was a lazy read on my part
LaLuzDelSol@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 247d
No they don't dude. AZ doesn't have a parent company. Immunocore has about 1 billion dollars in assets, AZ has about 100 billion. Stop making stuff up.
fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 246d
My bad partner "Immunocore’s specialty, however, has been working in oncology. Its therapies induced industry giants including AstraZeneca (NYSE:AZN), Eli Lilly (NYSE:LLY), GSK (NYSE:GSK) and Genentech to partner with the biotech over the years."
LaLuzDelSol@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 246d
That's completely different though. So they partner with all the big pharma companies, which makes sense given their research. Unless you think he's secretly on the take from AZ (idk how you would even attempt to bribe Bill Gates), he does not benefit at all financially from the Oxford/AZ deal and there's no sign of wrongdoing.
MagnificentSteiner@lemmy.zip · 125 pts · 250d
He's also a thief of course, as that's the only way to become a billionaire.
Maerman@lemmy.world · 59 pts · 250d
Yup. He stole a bunch of ideas and code, then got upset that people were stealing his ideas and code. Do as I say, not as I do.
WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world · 24 pts · 250d
Wait... You're telling me that people born into extreme privilege and wealth turn out to be self-aggrandizing, egotistical, sociopaths who drastically over-estimate their own importance and contribution to society?
My world view is shook!
ButtKiss@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 105 pts · 250d
Well yes.
Being a Billionaire should be criminalized
shiftymccool@piefed.ca · 39 pts · 250d
I kinda compare it to semi truck weigh stations. I found out some time ago that if the math works out that a truck got from one weigh station to another too fast the driver can get a speeding ticket since its assumed they broke the law getting there. Apply that to money. If a person accumulates too much money, it should just be assumed that person broke laws getting it and they should be severly fined (like, most of it).
bitcrafter@programming.dev · 12 pts · 250d
They're not assuming anything, they are doing calculus.
shiftymccool@piefed.ca · 7 pts · 249d
For the record, i literally said "if the math works out" 😁
monotremata@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 250d
I'm a little disappointed this wasn't a link to the film strip we saw in high school. The cop drawling "Now this here is Rolle's theorem..." is classic.
Edit: https://vimeo.com/101691769
burntbacon@discuss.tchncs.de · 2 pts · 249d
Aw, that makes me sad that I never got that. We just had the example in our textbook be a cop at a tollway.
aeternum@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 249d
burntbacon@discuss.tchncs.de · 3 pts · 249d
Lol, wikipedia in regards to math is always fucky. I love statistics and calculus, and I still struggle through their pages.
bitcrafter@programming.dev · 3 pts · 249d
It does not have to be your cup of tea, but for the record, reading math does not require being smart so much as being patient.
CileTheSane@lemmy.ca · 14 pts · 250d
It should be classified as a sign of mental illness. If I had half of a billion dollars I wouldn't work another day in my life and the general public would never hear from me. These fuckers have more money than they could ever spend and still desperately want more.
Tinidril@midwest.social · 5 pts · 249d
It is. They call it hoarding disorder.
aeternum@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 4 pts · 249d
CileTheSane@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 249d
But then how would they track their high score?
reddit_sux@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 250d
You can be a billionaire if you are willing to pay a million per month as taxes.
benjhm@sopuli.xyz · 7 pts · 250d
That's a rate of only 1.2% per year, was that your intention ?
aeternum@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 4 pts · 249d
PokerChips@programming.dev · 4 pts · 249d
There were a lot of tax write offs through incentives which was a good thing because it actually encouraged rich people and businesses to be proactively productive towards the public good.
So done right, they paid nowhere near the 80%. Of course there was abuse and loopholes.
And off topic and contrary to popular thought, Jimmy Carter was the one who started deregulation in this area. He was trying to get the economy moving again and was taking a "reasonable" approach. Reagan took Carter's idea and went on a heist with it to enrich buddies and doners
reddit_sux@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 249d
No, if he is earning a billion a year that's too low. But most billionaire have familial wealth and might be earning a few millions in a month. I don't mind taking a million or two off of it even if he is not earning anything.
aeternum@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 249d
olafurp@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 249d
I don't mind billionaires as long as everything is fairly taxed.
Rolive@discuss.tchncs.de · 6 pts · 249d
If taxes were fair there would be no billionaires.
titanicx@lemmy.zip · -7 pts · 250d
Now the only thing I will say is that Bill Gates is giving away much of his fortune and yes it may be to his benefit to a point however other people are actually benefiting from him giving it away. Bill Gates even admits that most of what he did when he was younger was driven out agreed. However he is doing quite a bit to try to change that and make up for that.
zbyte64@awful.systems · 6 pts · 250d
His donation pledge was more of a flex because he's increased his net worth more than he has donated. Also, people who were friends with Epstein should not get to decide where that money goes.
rozodru@pie.andmc.ca · 100 pts · 250d
Watch the TV movie from the late 90s "Pirates of Silicon Valley" which pretty much paints both Bill Gates and Steve Jobs as really shitty people. I mean just look at what Gates did with the Altair. Said he had an operating system, didn't have an operating system, and what have you.
Then there's the whole Xerox Park thing where neither Apple nor Microsoft would be where they're at today without the engineers at Xerox who were pretty much forced to hand over their stuff because Xerox execs didn't see value in a GUI and Mouse. Gates and Jobs both were more than happy to go in there and pillage what was developed in order to create Windows and The Macintosh/MacOS
melfie@lemy.lol · 34 pts · 250d
monotremata@lemmy.ca · 16 pts · 250d
*Xerox PARC. It's an acronym for Palo Alto Research Center.
Fredselfish@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 250d
Yep I remember that movie, but read Steve Levys Hackers. Gates was always a douch. I also read the letter he wrote. I think it was an opinion piece in a newsletter.
Core_of_Arden@lemmy.ml · 65 pts · 250d
We all know that every billionaire is a horrible person. They can't be anything else.
FinalRemix@lemmy.world · 44 pts · 250d
You don't get to a billionn without exploiting people along the way.
lazynooblet@lazysoci.al · 19 pts · 250d
ABAB
Core_of_Arden@lemmy.ml · 10 pts · 250d
People or natural ressources. Even if it's on stock trade, someone had to create that worth - and those who created it, didn't get it...
pineapple@lemmy.ml · 8 pts · 249d
Buying low and selling high is fundamentally taking advantage of other peoples losses.
charonn0@startrek.website · 15 pts · 249d
There is no such thing as an innocent billionaire.
JoeMontayna@lemmy.ml · -5 pts · 249d
Warren Buffet is ok in my book.
Core_of_Arden@lemmy.ml · 6 pts · 249d
Would you care to elaborate why he is okay in your book? Do you believe that he can make money out of thin air, without harming other people (mostly those who have the least)? Do you believe that when he invests in Goldman Sachs during the economic crisis in 2008, that it was a good choice? That making money of people losing homes and lives is what a good, or even "ok" person does?
JoeMontayna@lemmy.ml · 0 pts · 246d
I'm a simple man. Ok is ok enough.
kindred@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 62 pts · 250d
Tenderizer78@lemmy.ml · 19 pts · 250d
Sometimes it's about the effort of paying than the actual cost.
Of course, with Microsoft it's both.
deadcade@lemmy.deadca.de · 7 pts · 250d
Or the service. Software that goes out of its way to ensure you paid, and poses limitations on the paying customer. Like always-online DRM for video games.
Tenderizer78@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 249d
That's kinda what I meant by "Microsoft is both". I branded those as under the "effort of paying" (though I probably shouldn't have).
Maerman@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 250d
Very well put. I cannot stand the entitlement in the original letter.
melfie@lemy.lol · 55 pts · 250d
Prior_Industry@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 249d
I remember reading somewhere that his foundation was all a massive tax avoidance scheme. It was quite a compelling argument when broken down. I wish I could find it again.
burntbacon@discuss.tchncs.de · 3 pts · 249d
Simply follow the big money. He's got more net worth now than when he said he would start donating.
Prior_Industry@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 249d
Bingo
dil@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 249d
Idk who these ppl are even donating to, never benefits my life, wherever they go its not benefiting the ppl they took the money from, some third world country if that
JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl · 51 pts · 249d
And for any of the people saying "he changed".
One of his most recent "philanthropic" ventures was to partner with Nestle (good start) to "modernize and increase yields" of the dairy industries in impoverished countries.
The two organizations then sold modern (likely non-servicable) equipment and entrenched them in corporate supply chain systems geared towards export and making it much harder to trade locally (not sure how that part worked, but was in what I read).
For a grand total of........ 1% increased dairy yields.
Then 3-4 years later they pulled out, leaving heavily indebted farmers without the corporate supply chains and delivery systems they were forced to switch to, and making it very difficult to switch back to the old ways of working, so they can't sell nearly as much locally.
Who do you think will buy up those farms when the farmers go bankrupt and have to sell ar rock bottom prices.
untorquer@lemmy.world · 19 pts · 249d
His work on malaria in Africa focused on bed nets to the explicit exclusion of larvacide control of mosquitoes. Millions of preventable cases over the last 30 years.
Then there's the circumcision to fight aids.
Guy's a fuckwit.
Behind the bastards
Phegan@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 249d
tetris11@feddit.uk · 51 pts · 250d
His mother was an influential person on the board of directors of several firms. She met with John Opel, who was the IBM chairman, and secured her son's Microsoft contract with IBM in the 1980s, where it then became dominant and made her a ton of money.
It's vested interests, and who you know.
Maerman@lemmy.world · 30 pts · 250d
Yeah, I read that he was a nepo baby. Also, people say "But he dropped out of university to start Microsoft."
He dropped out of fucking Harvard. His life was easy as piss from the get-go.
HarneyToker@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 250d
Is everyone at Harvard a nepo baby or has definitely had an easy life? I don’t understand your argument.
FlyingCircus@lemmy.world · 18 pts · 250d
Yes, aside from a few scholarship kids, the Ivy League schools, and especially Harvard and Yale, were specifically built and continue to this day to be schools for the children of the elite.
crunchy@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 16 pts · 250d
It's a reasonable assumption that a family that could send their child to Harvard in the 70s was very well off already.
merc@sh.itjust.works · 15 pts · 250d
His mother came from money, being the daughter of a banker, and the granddaughter of a banker. His father was a lawyer who founded a law firm focused on corporate law and technology law. Given that his mom knew Opel personally, and his dad was a technology lawyer, is it any surprise that Gates' first contract with IBM was so incredibly friendly to Microsoft's interests?
In addition, IBM was under pressure at that point because it was being sued for antitrust violations by the US government. That limited how aggressive it could be in new contracts without drawing extra attention. In other words, the antitrust effort from the US government took power away from IBM and allowed for new companies to flourish. Then about 20 years later, Microsoft was sued for its own illegal use of its monopoly (a trial at which Bill Gates lied on the stand, and where Microsoft falsified evidence), and this work to limit the reach of Microsoft allowed for the Internet to flourish and led directly to the rise of companies like Google and Amazon. It's now time for another round of antitrust to allow more companies to flourish -- only hopefully this time the antitrust efforts don't fade out and are aggressively pursued year after year so we don't get more shitty monopolies making things awful.
tetris11@feddit.uk · 7 pts · 250d
Hear hear. I had real hopes for Lina Khan during Biden's term, but that seemed to have petered out to nothing. Let's see if something happens once the monster is out of power
supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz · 5 pts · 249d
Lina Khan is now co-chair of Zohran Mamdani's transition team!
tetris11@feddit.uk · 3 pts · 249d
I've got my fingers crossed
phase@lemmy.8th.world · 50 pts · 250d
He sold his first software before it was even finished to his own unuversity.
He saved Apple to avoid an antitrust trial.
It's just business right?
bitcrafter@programming.dev · 24 pts · 250d
What drives me crazy is when I hear this fact being cited as a positive thing that makes him a role model.
phase@lemmy.8th.world · 7 pts · 250d
It is a very good sales person. But he didn't understood how could the network (or Internet) change the world, even with his Windows monopole. He had Encarta and lost it, without reusing it, to Wikipedia.
bagsy@lemmy.world · 18 pts · 250d
He didn't even write that software, he had to buy it from someone else because his own version sucked.
BCsven@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 249d
He and colleagues wrote an interpreter to use BASIC on the Altair system. They didn't write basic from scratch
DreamAccountant@lemmy.world · 46 pts · 250d
His wife left him when she found out he's in the Epstein files. Because Bill Gates rapes children.
DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world · 21 pts · 250d
That is exactly how it looks. The timing is correct. I can imagine the argument, although, they might not have loved each other enough to even argue about it by that point.
Maerman@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 250d
Honestly, I wouldn't put it past him.
dubyakay@lemmy.ca · 4 pts · 250d
If I was a billionaire looking to make waves, I'd release a memoir upon my death bed, admitting to the kid rapey cabal. Nothing to lose. Hi Bill.
GnuLinuxDude@lemmy.ml · 37 pts · 250d
And in retrospect it's too bad more people didn't steal from Microsoft so that it failed as a business.
fuzzywombat@lemmy.world · 36 pts · 249d
Obviously Bill Gates is a household name and in the tech community everyone knows who is Steve Ballmer. However not many people know who Paul Allen is even though he was one of the founder of Microsoft at the very start. In 1982 Paul Allen was diagnosed with cancer and Bill and Steve were worried that if Paul died the shares of the company would go to someone else along with control of the company. While Paul was literally getting cancer treatment, Bill and Steve were scheming to dilute the shares of the company to wrestle the control of the company away from Paul. Fortunately for Paul he survived the cancer. It really doesn't put Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer in very good light though. I remember reading about this from Robert X. Cringely's blog about two decades ago and I heard Paul Allen wrote about his version of this story in his memoir before his death.
Edit: I tried to find the original Robert X. Cringely's story from back in 2006 but looks like that link is broken but he did referenced it in 2011 when Paul Allen's book was released.
https://www.cringely.com/2011/03/30/i-told-you-so/
tengkuizdihar@programming.dev · 13 pts · 249d
Paul Allen got great cards.
RodgeGrabTheCat@sh.itjust.works · 34 pts · 250d
The Hated One has a few videos about Gates and the shit he has done. Windows is only the tip.
Maerman@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 250d
I don't know The Hated One; I'm assuming they are a content creator. What kind of stuff do they usually do?
RodgeGrabTheCat@sh.itjust.works · 23 pts · 250d
Sorry about that. He is a content creator who posts on Youtube and bitchute who focuses on privacy, security, protesting, civil rights, the environment, and consumer rights. Usually how silicon valley is making all these problems worse with their greed.
https://www.youtube.com/c/TheHatedOne
https://www.bitchute.com/channel/rveHH7pMZVtI
Maerman@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 250d
Wonderful; thanks for sharing. I'll check him out this weekend.
RodgeGrabTheCat@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 250d
You are very welcome.
victorz@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 250d
Thanks for sharing those channels!
RodgeGrabTheCat@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 250d
You're welcome.
General_Effort@lemmy.world · 30 pts · 249d
I really don't get how opinions on intellectual property and its "theft" turn 180 whenever AI is mentioned.
umbrella@lemmy.ml · 43 pts · 249d
anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 8 pts · 249d
AI is theft in the same way that all private property theft. It isnt the piracy of media, it's the alienation of labor from its product, and withholding it for profit.
3yiyo3@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 249d
Private property is not theft, it is exploitation. Marx already refuted this anarchist childish way of thinking
anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com · -1 pts · 249d
The exploitation of private property is derived from the exclusion of labor from its product - maybe you have a different understanding of what 'theft' means, but it's the principled exclusion of what labor produces from the labor producing it that is the basis of marx's claim of 'exploitation'
drmoose@lemmy.world · -5 pts · 249d
All private property is theft? Lmao go back to your cave tankie
cnlwhs@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 8 pts · 249d
???
umbrella@lemmy.ml · 6 pts · 249d
Pika@rekabu.ru · 2 pts · 249d
Even libertarians, who are on the exact opposite side economically, agree IP is garbage made and manipulated to enrich the few.
General_Effort@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 249d
It's a bit of a split among libertarians. Some very notable figures like Ayn Rand were strong believers in IP. In fact, Ayn Rand's dogmas very much align with what is falsely represented as left-wing thought in the context of AI.
It's really irritating for me how much conservative capitalist ideals are passed off as left-wing. Like, attitudes on corporations channel Adam Smith. I think of myself as pragmatic and find that Smith or even Hayek had some good points (not Rand, though). But it's absolutely grating how uneducated that all is. Worst of all, it makes me realize that for all the anti-capitalist rhetoric, the favored policies are all about making everything worse.
Korhaka@sopuli.xyz · 5 pts · 249d
Clearly one of those horrible anarchotankapalists.
drmoose@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 249d
Anarchists believe that "all property is theft"? Lol
KittyJynx@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 248d
There is some disagreement between people who, for example, favor Proudhon versus those who favor Kropotkin over the ownership of personal tools that are involved in individual trade-craft. As with any ideology there are varying schools of thought but the common ideological baseline is that anything that requires capital investment should be collectively controlled and operated for the common good. A person's personal possessions including their home and tools required for self sufficiency are not considered "property" or a "means of production" by almost anyone.
A good real world example is the FOSS community, most of us would be quite vexed to say the least if someone started changing stuff on our personal computers but we also actively share our code, experience, and knowledge with the world for free. Same goes for the open hardware folks, permacomputing community, and the open research community.
drmoose@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 248d
Yet none of that can be interpreted as "all property is theft" unless you redefine what "property" itself means which is a terrible strategy for advertising Anarchy.
anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 249d
private property, distinct from personal property.
drmoose@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 248d
Is it? This dichotomy seems incredibly artificial and unsustainable.
cnlwhs@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 246d
Yes
umbrella@lemmy.ml · 5 pts · 249d
General_Effort@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 249d
"Property is theft."
drmoose@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 248d
Lmao sorry for not being able to take this seriously
cnlwhs@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 246d
You should recognise that meanings of words might not always match your inner dictionary. "Private Property" is used differently from "Personal Property" in a lot of places.
Aljernon@lemmy.today · 3 pts · 249d
Some people on the Left regretfully tried to redefine Private Property and split off some private property into "personal property" but since that's not how the language works it's caused endless miscommunication. By private property is theft he means Private Mean's of Production with the caveat that people essentially own their owns but homes can't be bought/sold/inherited.
PearOfJudes@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 249d
And piracy is actual enjoyment of art made by hardworking devs who unfortunately work for multi billion dollar companies T-T
General_Effort@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 249d
That's true in the same way that Trump's tariffs are paid by other countries. Which is to say: Not at all.
Bill Gates was no billionaire at the time. His background was probably shared by almost all computer hobbyists at the time.
SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social · 5 pts · 249d
Hardly. Bill Gates came from a wealthy family, attended a private school, and through it had thousands of hours of computer programming time several years before even the Altair 8800 came out. He had a personal connection to IBM through his mother, which is how Microsoft got the DOS deal. His circumstances were unique, and his success the result of a hefty dose of luck.
General_Effort@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 249d
What kind of person owned a computer as a hobby in 1976?
umbrella@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 249d
General_Effort@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 249d
Yeah, one would think so. And those were the hobbyists that Gates was addressing in that open letter.
Avicenna@programming.dev · 6 pts · 249d
the common denominator is money
Tenderizer78@lemmy.ml · 6 pts · 249d
I'm on the side of abolishing intellectual property, with the caveats that commercializing someone else's work or taking credit for someone else's work should be illegal.
If there wasn't a profit motive we'd get much less "slop art" and more challenging art made with passion. The slop would also be far less off-putting because at least the slop would be made with love for slop.
General_Effort@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 249d
So, not actually abolishing IP, then.
Tenderizer78@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 249d
Commercializing means sell for profit. If a non-profit were to create a cracked version of Windows 7 with security updates and sell that for $200 an install that'd not count as commercialization. The idea here is that if Netflix took someone else's work and made a bajillion dollars off it they'd need to ask for permission and credit the original author.
I don't know if something still counts as intellectual property if it can be infringed upon except by for-profit entities.
General_Effort@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 249d
In the US, copyright is limited by Fair Use. It is still IP. Eventually, you'd just be changing how Fair Use works. Not all for the better, I think.
Maybe one could compare it to a right of way over someone's physical property. The public may use it for a certain purpose, in a limited way, which lowers its value. But what value it has, belongs to the owner.
3abas@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 249d
One day chat got won't work without a paid subscription...
Intellectual property as a concept is a cancer to humanity, and we'd be in a much better world without it.
untorquer@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 249d
This is why they want Wikipedia and internet archive, etc, killed off. They have it for their training data but they won't have a profitable model via paid subscriptions without a monopoly on information.
nomy@lemmy.zip · 5 pts · 249d
Information wants to be free.
untorquer@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 249d
Yes but we're in the bait and switch phase of it. They're pushing the AI responses at the top of search to cut down the through clicking to Wikipedia. They're trying to capture behavior by being the lowest effort route to an answer. They're gambling that people will forget these other sites and then stop donating. Then it's to the courts until they're too broke to keep the servers online.
The information will still be free, but maybe obfuscated enough that most people accept [erratic] information as a service.
General_Effort@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 249d
"They" is the copyright industry. The same people, who are suing AI companies for money, want the Internet Archive gone for more money.
I share the fear that the copyrightists reach a happy compromise with the bigger AI companies and monopolize knowledge. But for now, AI companies are fighting for Fair Use. The Internet Archive is already benefitting from those precedents.
Korhaka@sopuli.xyz · 3 pts · 249d
I don't mind it if the models are open for anyone to use in any way they see fit. If you trained it off public works and made it available to everyone, I am ok with that.
wolfinthewoods@lemmy.ml · 25 pts · 250d
"Well, Steve [Jobs]… I think it’s more like we both had this rich neighbour named Xerox and I broke into his house to steal the TV set and found out that you had already stolen it."
NewNewAugustEast@lemmy.zip · 23 pts · 249d
Did you also read that he taught himself code by reading out print outs in the trash? He wanted to close that ability to learn. Shut that open stuff down and make licenses, while he himself learned from others.
ArmchairAce1944@discuss.online · 18 pts · 249d
Didn't he come from a stupidly rich family and had access to a computer (at a time when it was like having access to a helicopter) whenever he wanted to learn and fiddle around? Isn't that where he got the print outs?
aeternum@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 10 pts · 249d
ArmchairAce1944@discuss.online · 13 pts · 249d
With connections to the Rockefeller family. Also his mom was the one who convinced IBM to give Bill the contract for MS-DOS (which he bought from some other guy).
aeternum@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 8 pts · 249d
nomy@lemmy.zip · 5 pts · 249d
How many 0's are in his bank account?
Yeah, he ripped that guy off.
aeternum@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 249d
PokerChips@programming.dev · 3 pts · 249d
If I'm remembering correctly, his mom was on the board of IBM.
Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 249d
No. He's a nepo baby.
myfunnyaccountname@lemmy.zip · 16 pts · 249d
What?! No. I bet next you are gonna tell me lil Donnie Trump is a pedophile.
slacktoid@lemmy.ml · 0 pts · 249d
Wait till you know ol Billy could be one too
myfunnyaccountname@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 248d
What!? Nooo. Who next? Prince Andrew. Come on, like the royals would ever be into something like that.
DupaCycki@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 249d
There have been many times when I thought to myself: "Hold on. Can I be absolutely sure that billionaires are scum? Maybe there's a crucial part of the story I'm missing?"
Every single time I just found even more cases of them blatantly lying, manipulating data and taking advantage of everything and everyone around them for personal gain. And every one of those times, it got me more depressed about the current and future state of society and the world in general.
You can try this yourself. I highly recommend it, even though the outcome is obvious. We can very rarely, if ever, be 100% sure about anything, so it's always a good idea to put your beliefs to the test. However, I find it fairly self-evident that anyone seriously arguing in favor of any billionaire has simply never critically examined this topic.
No matter where and how deeply you look, it's just evidence upon evidence upon evidence that they are, in fact, the worst filth that has ever shared the air with us. Though at least this one thing is comming to an end. Soon, we'll be breathing toxic waste while they'll be enjoying clean air in their doomsday bunkers larger than entire neighborhoods.
Reginald_T_Biter@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 249d
frog_brawler@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 249d
dx1@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 248d
There's some 0.0001% theoretical possibility that a billionaire could be a non-sociopath. If they literally dedicated their life to extracting money from the wider economy or top crust, not spending any of it on themselves or their descendants, but instead solely redistributing to the most needing people in the world. Monetary wealth at the end of the day is just economic control - it doesn't become evil until it's actually used for your own benefit, i.e., the economy is being rewired for you to live in luxury.
Assuming of course (big fat assumption) that you don't screw people over to get it in the first place - and, even if you are giving it all away, it's questionable why you'd end up with a surplus of money that large, if your goal is to donate it, why would the rate coming in exceed the rate going out, unless the goal was to purchase some institution or something, i.e., purchase Walmart and turn it into a cooperative. Probably not to invest the money to grow it to have more to give, because the return on investment for the money also has to come from somewhere, i.e., has its own ethical ramifications.
But I mean, name a single person in the last century who fit that profile. I can't name one. So. And at the end of the day the best situation for the society isn't to have single people controlling things and hoping they use their power responsibly, it's to democratize that power and have everyone use it responsibly.
wabasso@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 249d
Oooh, ruin Warren Buffet for me!
(This isn’t a snarky rebuttal I just never heard anything but figures it’s too good to be true)
Aljernon@lemmy.today · 7 pts · 249d
Warren Buffet is an interesting case. He's straight up said that their IS a class war going on and billionaires are winning. He also expressed some amazement that society would award his skill set with so much money. That being said he is a capitalist thru and thru and has faith in a failed economic system because it turned out well for him.
Geobloke@aussie.zone · 13 pts · 250d
Cool, you're taking life lessons from a 21 year old...
thefactremains@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 250d
I think he genuinely believed it was the best thing for society. He, like so many, was (and likely still is) convinced that everyone thinks like he does. So he believes the only thing that drives people is money.
Now if that were the case, the only way to advance society and facilitate growth in software would be to offer smart people a lot of money.
In that flawed logic, he really thought it was for the best.
Maerman@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 250d
Fair point. It's not an excuse, but it does explain a lot. Nobody is the villain in their own story, after all.
quick_snail@feddit.nl · 9 pts · 250d
Link.
xvertigox@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 250d
Jankatarch@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 249d
He is literally in the Epstein List no?
Medic8teMe@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 249d
Even if he wasn't he's still a capitalist pig.
teslasaur@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 249d
*oligarchical pig
Capitalism is just free competition, which is the opposite of what Bill Gates is for.
In a communist economy he would be the same pig.
Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 249d
Capitalism always lead to monopolies and a lack of competition. At some point one company will always get lucky and be able to use its money to completely destroy competition, especially small competition.
teslasaur@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 249d
*Oligarchy always lead to monopolies and a lack of competition.
slacktoid@lemmy.ml · 0 pts · 249d
Yes and capitalism has all the incentives to create oligarchies.
teslasaur@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 249d
So does socialism and communism.
slacktoid@lemmy.ml · 0 pts · 249d
Ok buddy boy. Sounds like someone is a temporarily embarassed millionaire.
quoll@lemmy.sdf.org · 1 pts · 248d
gates wife left him bc epstein hooked him up with a russian chick 30 years younger then him :\
but he was a piece of shit decades before that happened.
Eyedust@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 7 pts · 248d
My PC repair teacher hated Gates. The first story he told us about him was about how he essentially obtained DOS for a literal pittance, turned a massive profit on it, and never credited the original creators.
I might've skewed the story over the years of trying to keep it in my memory, but if I did it just goes to show how much I hate Bill Gates.
nagaram@startrek.website · 6 pts · 248d
Nah you about got it.
comradegodzilla@lemmy.ml · 7 pts · 249d
Billionaire being a selfish person? Who woulda known? But yes, even though he donates a lot of his wealth, becoming a billionaire is a sign of being a sociopath.
ragebutt@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 10 pts · 249d
His donations are a tax dodge. Besides this billionaire philanthropy is a way to say that the people should not dictate how funds are allocated to things like medical and scientific research, international aid, etc. it’s saying that we instead are okay with our wealth being extracted to pseudokings and allowing them to make these decisions on our behalf. Should we research aids? Space? Should we give food aid to foreign nations experiencing famine? We don’t get to decide, let’s hope one of the oligarchs shines their light on these plights.
Meanwhile it buys great PR to rehab an image. Bill gates is “the nice billionaire” who sends people 10k of Microsoft shit he didn’t even pay for through reddit secret Santa (eg an ad buy). No one then cares that was instrumental in making computers full of proprietary bullshit, destroying interoperability, eliminating competition and killing open source efforts (look up embrace, extend, extinguish if you want to get angry about 90s and early 2000s Microsoft), or even that he probably raped kids on epsteins island
Aljernon@lemmy.today · -3 pts · 249d
He desperately wants a Nobel Prize
geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 248d
Nobody cares about a Nobel Prize. He buys up vaccines using his "charity" and then puts them all behind a patent wall. And bill uses his influence to do capitalist psyops, like doing climate change denial through channels like Kurzgesagt.
tengkuizdihar@programming.dev · 6 pts · 249d
from the letter
Im all for giving fair or even plentiful compensation to developers who made our softwares. But, how times and hindsight made this passage sounds like, "wait you guys got paid?"
TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 249d
That's why one should not trust billionaires who make noises about changing the world for the better. It is merely to stoke their egos. I'm not even religious anymore but I still remember being taught that it is better to share the success without bragging about it. There are genuinely good rich folks, but they don't brag about how nice they are. Chuck Feeney, the billionaire founder of Duty Free, quietly donated the majority of his wealth by the time he died. He was left with $2 million after the donations and was renting an apartment in New York. There is also a millionaire who built houses for the homeless. But I would say that the "good ones" are far and few.
However, the darker side of trying to "be rich and be quiet about it" are some billionaires donating to regressive causes. I think I don't need to mention the Koch brothers and Murdochs. Being the "power behind the throne" is more effective way to actually wield power. That's why I don't think ridding Trump will solve anything unless there is a more robust system to prevent money in politics being put ever again.
Crashumbc@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 249d
The "doing good" thing is just a cover to avoid paying taxes. All the money Gates has donated just went to charities he set up and his heirs own/control...
TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 249d
Precisely. And to belabour the point, if they really want to "do good", just shut up and do it. No need to announce on the megaphone that they are good for wanting to donate most of their wealth, but are still billionaires and getting richer. If they are serious about helping, their net worth would have decreased by now and would not be billionaires anymore.
dil@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 249d
Mackenzie scott made more money than she donated, and shes donated quite a bit, idk the logistics of that or how it works, donated 19 billion worth 32
Iambus@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 248d
The most lemmy take ever
Formfiller@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 248d
All billionaires are horrible humans and parasitic to all of humanity
corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca · 4 pts · 250d
Bill Gates spent a lot of his pro years running a bad company quite well, and exploiting a dominant position in the market that any soulless biz guy would love to have.
He seemed to get a conscience around the time he stopped running the show, and seems to be different while not regretting his behavior in that phase.
I think we can decide he was a bit of a cock back then, while still noting he's done some good work since. We are nuanced enough, right?
kungen@feddit.nu · 29 pts · 250d
He's still the same self-serving prick, just that he's trying to buy himself some karma whilst channeling his riches through his own foundations.
Twig@sopuli.xyz · 27 pts · 250d
The Behind The Bastards postcast episode would suggest otherwise
Aeao@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 250d
I love that show. When you compare him to other billionaires he’s not the worst. I think Jeff bezos does more harm. He has an episode too
Pika@rekabu.ru · 6 pts · 249d
Not winning a race to the bottom doesn't make someone good or decent, though
Any any good person wouldn't become a billionaire in the first place.
Aeao@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 249d
Very true but if you’re deciding which of the rich to eat he’s probably not the first to start with.
dreadbeef@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 249d
i wouldn't cry if he were the first tho
Allero@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 249d
About 10th, really
CeeBee_Eh@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 249d
It was all a show. His "philanthropy" was about exploiting farmers in other countries.
Pika@rekabu.ru · 2 pts · 249d
I appreciate your desire for more nuance, and I support it throughout discussions.
But the case of Bill Gates is fairly clear-cut. His philanthropy efforts are covering for shitty business practices and tax evasion.
This is one of the reasons why people are concerned about billionaire philanthropy in the first place. It creates a good image of a savior, while serving to reduce taxes and cover for malicious investments. We would be much, much better off taking this in form of taxes and actually allocating it for good.
scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech · -19 pts · 250d
God you hit the nail on the head, and why I'm getting very annoyed here on Lemmy. People refuse to have nuanced takes and just comment incessantly about how people are evil and doing anything makes you a bad person. Turns out people are nuance, and we can judge them as such. You can say he did some terrible things to make Microsoft successful while also saying he has done some very good things with his fortune. It is not black and white.
Ohmmy@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 21 pts · 250d
People are nuanced, billionaires aren't just people, they're a distillate of oppression. The amount of wealth and power people like Gates have is perverse, obscene, and unsustainable. With power comes responsibility, if that responsibility feels unfair, give up the power, he could decide to drop everything and feed the hungry.
Lemmy is dogmatic yes, and sometimes that's really fucking annoying but billionaires aren't people like you and me, they are disgustingly greedy to the point it is abusive to not just individuals but millions of people.
Count042@lemmy.ml · 21 pts · 250d
Dude got divorced because his wife found out about his involvement with Epstein.
Some things aren't nuanced at all. Some crimes and shittiness cannot be made up for.
Wubwub@lemmy.zip · 11 pts · 250d
Its not black and white to you but people have different values so him throwing billions of dollars at charity does not effect his choice to buy up farm land and potentially ruin innovation in the computing space.
These are not my opinions just saying why someone would act like it is black and white
scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech · 0 pts · 250d
Your take is more nuanced than most I see here and I appreciate that, see the other comment as a prime example.
Wubwub@lemmy.zip · -1 pts · 250d
I suppose I did see "ABAB" so I suppose you would be talking about those comments and I agree that is infuriating
scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech · -7 pts · 250d
It's just every thread man, every one of them devolves into it and I'm so tired. It's quite literally like the Good Place where even the act of buying a tomato will get people raging in the comments about how apparently you support climate change, slavery, and every other bad thing involved in the growing of it. Or, hear me out, I just bought a tomato. I'm just so tired of it here
Count042@lemmy.ml · 7 pts · 249d
Maybe pick a billionaire that wasn't a frequent flyer of the Lolita Express to have this epiphany.
Seriously. He is a deeply bad evil person that paid a lot of money for propaganda, and you fell for it.
bold_atlas@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 249d
Have you tried asking a mod to unlock your prison cell and let you leave?
Tinidril@midwest.social · 2 pts · 249d
LOL, just no.
Just hear me out guys, Hitler was a nature lover! You can't be judging people by just their worst acts!
scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech · -1 pts · 249d
Again, no nuance and going right to black and white
AnyOldName3@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 250d
Some of the charity is self-serving, e.g. eradicating diseases means he's less likely to catch them (and really any billionaire not funnelling funds to pandemic prevention etc. is being moronic), and founding charter schools on land he owns so over the life of the school they pay more in rent for the lease than they cost to build is just a tax dodge. Most billionaires are just so evil that they won't spend money on themselves if other people who aren't paying also benefit, so in comparison, Gates' better ability to judge what's in his interests makes him look good.
AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 249d
In my dictionary "nuanced" has become synonymous with "childishly naive and misinformed" thanks to its use as a thought stopping cliche by people like you
scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech · -1 pts · 249d
And ad hominem attacks are empty and hollow to me.
AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 248d
typical hypocrite response
UNY0N@lemmy.wtf · 4 pts · 250d
And he is one of the "better" billionaires. He has donated over $100 Billion to help people around the world, which makes him look like a great guy on paper.
I think it's not so much him as a person, but his business decisions in the context of capitalism. That's the real evil, not any one person.
Just to be clear, I'm not defending him or his actions.
Maerman@lemmy.world · 18 pts · 250d
Yeah. He has shaped the world in very negative ways through his decisions. He could donate his entire fortune today and live out the rest of his life in a monastery, but I would still hate him.
DeathsEmbrace@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 250d
That doesn't even scratch the anti consumerist behaviour behind what he did to Linux that piece of shit.
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml · 11 pts · 250d
Gates is in the Epstein files.
merc@sh.itjust.works · 7 pts · 250d
He's one of the worst billionaires, it's just that since the 2010s he's been trying hard to soften that image.
kilgore_trout@feddit.it · 7 pts · 250d
He is moving money in his own foundation
digdilem@lemmy.ml · -7 pts · 250d
Brave of you to hold a nuanced opinion! So many people have a very binary view of others, and Lemmy's the same, as the downvoting shows.
And yes, totally, he was a typical morally corrupt businessman and one of the first tech bros in a time before most of Lemmy was even born. But he's also done a lot of good in the second half of his life. People are dismissive of that but they bloody well shouldn't be.
Who else has contributed $2bn specifically to fight malaria? Nobody. There's quite a few now who could have helped but nobody else has. The Gates Foundation has also contributed that much again towards fighting Tuberculosis and AIDs. These are big numbers and they've had a real effect. Those of us who live comfortable lives are fortunate where these diseases aren't everyday killers of friends and family and we cannot fully appreciate the benefit this work has done.
Does this offset his earlier negative behaviour? I honestly think it might do.
Credibly_Human@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 250d
What a ridiculous argument you've made here. The voting system is literally binary. No one can vote 7/10 on messaging, 4/10 on points.
This is exactly why hes done it. You don't know what hes actually responsible for. You don't see the pharmaceutical investments hes made, farmland he owns, or his bad takes (like recently suggesting that we should abandon the climate because he's dipping his toes into the AI space).
You see some flashy figures and figure, well that must be a good guy!
Some "nuance" that is.
digdilem@lemmy.ml · -4 pts · 250d
Why would he give a shit what people think about him? Others rich people don't because when you've got enough money you can insulate yourself entirely from what the world thinks.
Nor do the people judging him so harshly.
The fuck? Why would he donate money and save countless lives just to benefit from it via some claimed business link?
What a ridiculous argument you've made here.
Credibly_Human@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 249d
This is the most ridiculous line of reasoning.
Firstly, many rich people care. Many care about their "legacy". They want their names on big donations, and on school campuses.
Secondly, many rich people spend inordinate amounts on PR advisement firms, demonstrating that there are significant dollar values put into caring about this. We're talking about PR for the person, not even for a business.
They judge from what is known. You judge from giving him the benefit of the doubt between the cracks.
This is such a bizarre misrepresentation of what my comment is clearly saying.
I am clearly pointing out that he is still doing evil and you are being blinded by some fancy curated numbers.
I don't even know how you got to that conclusion.
AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 249d
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4TunaXwprQ
CrabAndBroom@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 250d
I wish there was a better way than the "be a horrible piece of shit for the first half of your life until you get your bag, then do nice stuff to rehab your image" path a lot of of them seem to take, but at least we get something out of some of them that way I suppose.
Credibly_Human@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 249d
He never stopped doing bad things, he just started rehabing his image
FriendBesto@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 247d
Gates hides behind his psychopathic greed and thirst for maniacal influence and power behind charity, what few people know is that the Bill's foundation is an excellent exercise of venture philanthropy, where seeking profits comes first over everything else, at the expense of you know, philanthropy. They admit this.
It is something a lot of billionaires do, the Zuck has one, many do. They are not charities at all, in the practical sense but they are tax shelters. Gates will say that he has no day to day control, but he does help lean it where he wants it to go, plus you know who does by proxy and by earmarking the major donations? The Gates and Melinda Trust Fund. Who controls that? Bill and Melinda Gates and until a few years ago, also Buffet.
Bill is smart. He wants to make a shitload of money on vaccine tech? Sure, have the foundation give earmarked donations to the WHO that can only be used for that, then GABI, his other arm of the foundation can serve as the middle man for that cash. That's before he invested hundreds of millions in big pharma and then what? = Profit. He does the same on education? = Profit. He pushed fake meat, invest a bit on it --relatively speaking to him-- and then, on the side, becomes the largest if not second largest farm land owner in the USA who then leases that land back to farmers. = Profit.
How come most people do not know most of this, because he also "donates" hundreds of millions to big media, you know, out the kindness of his heart. You know, so why would they report or say or rpeort anything negative of the guy? Quite the opposite. Remember Covid, why is a billionare on the news telling you what to do? Why him? Why any billionaire? Luckily, the link below tells us who they bribe, I mean, help with generous donations to their yearly budgets. And this is a couple of year old but the trend continues.
Revealed: Documents Show Bill Gates Has Given $319 Million to Media Outlets](https://www.mintpressnews.com/documents-show-bill-gates-has-given-319-million-to-media-outlets/278943/)
You question any of this? How dare you you? You bigot, conspiracy theorist! Admittedly, that narrative keeps most people from looking at his BS critically.
Hey, remember when people cared about the environment? Nah, Gates said that we have to focus on Energy production instead now. Wait the guy who is now heavily investing billikns in AI and power hungry data centers wants more energy? You don't say!
https://www.gatesnotes.com/home/home-page-topic/reader/three-tough-truths-about-climate
Luckily for us he already had created a seeding/funding program where such initiatives will be invested on and much profit will be had on this exact front, and most will fall for it, because they always do.
https://www.breakthroughenergy.org/
Hikermick@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 250d
Can you imagine what Microsoft was like in 1976?
Juice@midwest.social · 2 pts · 249d
He's a total ideologue.
finitebanjo@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 249d
Bill Gates is a Mid Tier human being, bringing food and medicine to people all over the world instead of mindlessly hoarding like other Billionaires.
He isn't a good human being, I reserve that title for people who don't fight climate conservation.
He is just mid.
pyre@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 248d
yeah, but on the other hand, he fucked up the entire reduction system in the US.
Minimac@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 249d
He have no life
darkmogool@feddit.org · 1 pts · 248d
yeah… no shit…
Digit@lemmy.wtf · 1 pts · 232d
Contrast Bill Gates' horrible "Open Letter To Hobbyists" to https://www.gnu.org/gnu/initial-announcement.html
ronigami@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 248d
He’s missing out on his redemption arc. But I doubt if put in his shoes that anyone would pass up the opportunity he had.
cassandrafatigue@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 0 pts · 249d
More of a total goatse of a man, an impressive gaping emptiness that consumes and gets ass all over everything while making us all look at it.
Except the wedding ring. He's too much of a pedophile to keep one of those.
wabasso@lemmy.ca · 0 pts · 249d
Upvote for use of goatse in an insult.
petersr@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 250d
I read his memoir "Source Code". He has had a fascinating life and I still don't understand how such a geeky person turns into cold blooded business as he does. There are still a lot of other billionaire I would shit on before Gates and I really respect his pledge to give away his wealth and his work with charity, but yeah well, I guess he has pretty awful sides still.
Bloomcole@lemmy.world · 19 pts · 250d
fake charity that benefits him in other ways.
there is zero altruistic motive in anything he does.
SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de · 0 pts · 250d
Pretty sure the charity actually does decent work
But yeah, it's basically a way to clear his name in the history records
Bloomcole@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 249d
No, he doesn't care about his name, it's a scam to make more money. https://newrepublic.com/post/177019/billionaire-philanthropy-scam-bill-gates
petersr@lemmy.world · -3 pts · 250d
That is simply not true. I might be that some of it benefits him partly or fully, but saying that nothing of all his projects does anything other than benefit him is something easily falsifiable.
Bloomcole@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 249d
Not saying the charity organization is fake itself.
But Gates doing things 'for charity' is 100% fake.
Tax purposes, etc.
Gets a country to buy a vaccine (this specific one, no other generic cheaper one) and then Gates 'helps' by paying 10%.
Huge profit for his investment in the company that he happened to invest in and coincidentally made that specific vaccine.
Noit to mention he profited from covid and was indirectly responsible for massive deaths
merc@sh.itjust.works · 18 pts · 250d
Even if it is just a scam?
petersr@lemmy.world · -3 pts · 250d
I mean - if he at least shows some motivation to do it, then it is still better than the many billionaire that simple don't try to give a shit.
merc@sh.itjust.works · 10 pts · 250d
Or his PR firm suggested it would be effective, which it has been.
petersr@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 250d
Sure.
insaneinthemembrane@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 250d
What makes you think a geeky person isn't cold blooded?
Mangoholic@lemmy.ml · -1 pts · 249d
A tale of greed ending with a despicable billionaire.
slacktoid@lemmy.ml · -1 pts · 249d
He was friends with Jeffrey Epstein after he was convicted for child abuse. Bill Gates is just an awful awful billionaire.
Aljernon@lemmy.today · 4 pts · 249d
I've read that rather than little kids, Gates was interested in Epsteins influence with other members of the elite because Bill has an obsession with getting a Nobel Prize. Doesn't absolve his character but I haven't heard any rape allegations from victims yet.
geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 248d
Bill's wife was very mad that Bill kept hanging out with Epstein and cited it as one of the divorce reasons.
She refused to elaborate and told people they should hear the rest from Bill himself. So I think we all know where this is going.
Aljernon@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 248d
I'm not defending Gates, I'm saying he allegedly had other motivations. Definitely could have been a 2 birds with 1 stone for him.
slacktoid@lemmy.ml · -1 pts · 249d
I didn't say he did. Is more of Billy at the height of his wealth and influence he couldn't ditch Epstein. He has no good bone in his body.
PhAzE@lemmy.ca · -2 pts · 249d
raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world · -4 pts · 250d
Not to say he's a good person, but contrary to most billionaires, he
Furthermore, he's long gone from Microsoft, so I think your ire is better directed at Satya Nadella and similar totalitarian elitist pieces of shit
fluxx@lemmy.world · 19 pts · 250d
Well, not raping children is kind of a low bar. But didn't he lobby Astra Zeneca not to open source the covid vaccine, because he has a stake there? Humanist my ass. Edit: someone already pointed this out already, I ought to read the thread before posting.
raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 250d
it is a low bar, but one that a majority of oligarchs fail to clear these days
Tangentism@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 250d
Also largest owner of arable farmland in the US
SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca · 11 pts · 250d
Melinda Gates divorced him because he was fucking around.
BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today · 30 pts · 250d
She divorced him because it became clear he was a regular on Epstein's island.
raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 250d
Unfortunately it does look like he, too, was involved in this kabal. Even though we don't know for sure, there's not much point in assuming innocence, even though I won't consider him a pedo-criminal until I see some more evidence.
dreadbeef@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 10 pts · 250d
nothing unfortunate about him going except for the victims. Fuck his reputation with regular people, let rich people think hes a good guy
BakerBagel@midwest.social · 8 pts · 250d
She divorced him because he was best friends with Jeffery Epstein. They had DEEP connections
raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 250d
To be clear - while I do consider it likely that it was as the other reply to your comment suggests - I won't judge a stranger for cheating on their spouse as long as it is consensual and they don't expose anyone (e.g. their spouse) to a risk of STDs
bitcrafter@programming.dev · 3 pts · 250d
If it's explicitly consensual then it's not cheating because you are not breaking any understood rules of the relationship.
raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 250d
I meant consensual whatever sexual or non sexual act they are cheating with, i.e. not rape or sexual abuse etc. In that case I don't judge people without knowing what their reasons are for cheating.
zbyte64@awful.systems · 3 pts · 250d
The guy is on the Epstein list and his wife left him because he was too friendly to the guy....
He also fucked over our public education system
Engywuck@lemmy.zip · -5 pts · 250d
Most people are.
DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 250d
It's a continuum, of course, like everything. Most people sit somewhere in the middle, with a few people defining the extremes.
No, most people are not horrible.
Credibly_Human@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 250d
I doubt you actually believe this, at least if we are understanding the words as written.
Just based on the website we are talking on, I am going to assume we have a few shared moral similarities, at least at a glance.
We think murder, rape, discrimination based on inalienable traits, domestic abuse, religious fanaticism, theft outside of exceptions are wrong.
If we start going down even that quickly thought up list, and just look at surveys from groups throughout the world, we start chunking massive percentages of people off of our "good" list very quickly.
These are nowhere near exact numbers because the point isn't about any specific one of these, but about disqualifying behaviours and points of view.
Most people don't murder, but many support it. Let's just say we are only thinking about people who will murder at some point in their lives, and guesstimate that at 1% off the list.
99% good
Most people don't rape... or do they? How many third world or religiously fanatic nations treat rape as standard, within marriages, on people of lower status, etc.
Even in western nations, the numbers of people who are sexually assaulted by people they know are more like 1 in [single digit number], and then further surveys always reveal that there is probably significant under-reporting going on, with many people unable to believe they were raped, told to be silent, and who ultimately rationalize away the event.
Now you go to countries with religious fanaticism, and many if not most condone rape in some fashion, especially spousal rape.
I would estimate, that the amount of people who rape, extremely roughly guesstimating, is around 1/10th the population, if not higher.
Some will overlap with the murderers of course, but this is just a thought experiment, and I already think this guess is on the low side, so lets move on.
89% good
Discrimination is where we start chunking hard. Even if you try to be charitable here, surveys show that even within western countries many are ok with and regularly discriminate against people for their inalienable traits. You go to poorer countries or countries with less stable situations and this gets even worse.
Lets just guesstimate that of the non overlaps, this takes 3/10 off the list, giving quite a bit of leeway to people with less blatant instances.
59% good
I could keep going but I hope you see the point I am making here and why I think that if just about anyone here sat down and truly pieced together what the average person was like, with whatever their personal list of disqualifiers from being a good person were, they would quickly come to the conclusion, that most people are not good, and could easily come to the conclusion that many were horrible, depending on what horrible meant in that context. Horrible doesn't have to be saved for only hitler just because its not used for someone who steals a candy bar.
Engywuck@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 250d
It depends on your definition of horrible. Mine is quite broad.
causepix@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 250d
People are shaped by the conditions which they are subjected to. Currently, those conditions promote endless greed and exploitation as a way and means of life, and give out huge advantages to anyone willing and able to perpetrate them at scale.
TrickDacy@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 250d
Speaking for yourself it would seem
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml · -1 pts · 250d
Sounds like you need to keep better company