Bill Gates calls Elon Musk’s embrace of far-right politicians abroad ‘insane shit’

[floofloof@lemmy.ca]

Unlike the US taxpayer, Microsoft has a choice. But as far as I know, Bill Gates isn't involved with MS any more.

[m33@lemmy.sdf.org]

Sarcasm ?

[goodthanks@lemmy.world]

I think he is dedicated, dangerous and awful. I just don't think he is smart. I've known people who achieved wealth, started successful businesses etc. They had domain expertise and ambition. But they also neglected and fucked up other critical aspects of their lives (like their relationships with partners and kids). I didn't consider them to be smart. In my mind, smart implies a well roundedness, and the capacity for self reflection, and empathy. Musk just has the personality traits, and family wealth, to enable him to "succeed" in our current society.

[siegfried@lemmy.world]

Maybe if Musk started out with no money, that would be fair in some sense.

Why is this american obsession on weighting the value of men with the money they made? Musk is an idiot regardless of his money or how he made it.

[viking_hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com]

And how he fought tooth and nail against generic versions of the covid vaccines being allowed, likely leading to thousands of deaths and many more getting sick in poorer countries where most people can't afford name brand drugs.

[gloomy@mander.xyz]

Yes. I don't want to judge people by who they were four decades ago, but who they have become. I believe that every human has the potential to grow and learn.

Mind you, I'm not saying Mr. Gates is an angel now, or shouldn't be judged. But I'd rather base ma judgement on the person he is now that on the person he was long ago.

[viking_hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com]

TIL that his blocking generic versions of the covid vaccines which led to the deaths of thousands if not millions in poorer countries where most people can't afford name brand drugs happened 44 years ago

[blackmist@feddit.uk]

Maybe it's no coincidence that Twitter has been pushing all the "Bill Gates Microchip Vaccines" lunatics over the last few years, in order to discredit a rival.

[ragebutt@lemmy.dbzer0.com]

Not shocking to hear, he’s a scumbag at heart. But now if you say that people will be like “uhhh how can you say that he’s donated so much money”

Then when you point out he’s donated literally 0% of his overall current net worth, his past (and current, apparently) behavior has arguably as much humanity if not more than he has offset, etc you’ll get whataboutism. “What have you done??”

I don’t want philanthropy to be contingent on the whims of billionaires. Gates has done a lot but it still has major issues, there is no real transparency, and it’s still authoritatively controlled because he has a great deal of influence over his foundation. The even bigger issue is that he is by far the exception. Other billionaires donate minimally only to maximize tax benefits and only to issues they have been personally impacted by.

The other day I was with people who were watching a football game. The eagles won and I asked why the owner gets to speak first at the trophy ceremony, let alone at all, given it was the teams effort. This led to a whole discussion but one thing that came up was how he donates so much money to autism research because he has a grandson with autism. This was meant to appeal to me because I have a background working in autism research and I work with people with autism a lot.

all I could think is “how fucked up is it that we have to hope that an obscenely rich person personally experiences the issue for them to decide to bequeath funding?” This inherently means that things with a much higher rate of prevalence, like autism (1 in 36, roughly) or dementia (prevalence varies widely by age range (2% to 13%) but ~10 million cases per year), will get tons of money. But what about far less common things? I’ve worked with people who have extremely rare conditions. Angelmans syndrome, prader willi, chromosomal deletions, (rates of 1-2 per 10,000) or extremely rare things like hellers syndrome (rates of 1-2 per 100,000).

This is why we fund things like NIMH, so that money can be fairly dispersed to ensure that all things are researched. Teams of people research what needs to be researched. This isn’t even just about equity; sometimes researching lesser known disorders leads to discoveries that are applicable in a broader context

But instead we let a few oligarchs hoard money. Most of them don’t bother to fund this stuff at all and they few that do only bother to do so when it’s something personally relevant to them. We have no say in the matter.

[goodthanks@lemmy.world]

I'm not sure what you mean. I'm not American, and I don't place much value on enormous wealth accumulation. I'm just acknowledging that there is a difference between gaining enormous wealth with a hefty leg up from family wealth versus doing it from scratch, like growing up in poverty for example.

[reksas@sopuli.xyz]

You can't get that amount of money without exploitation. If you start from 0 it just means you have to actually work for it but end result is still the same.

[reksas@sopuli.xyz]

had he actually cared, he should have demanded and funded research into them to either prove his point or fix the problem.

[nitefox@sh.itjust.works]

Yeah, he cares so much about “polio” and hiv which is fine and all, but he is trying to justify Trump ffs, who is, and was, a covid denier! Calling out musk is the bare minimum, and its just so crazy that nobody has done so yet

[woht24@lemmy.world]

Do what? Governments need to do more.

You're saying Bill Gates should meddle in international affairs to stop Musk?

[goodthanks@lemmy.world]

I agree. If you started from 0 and got rich you became a class traitor.

[jonne@infosec.pub]

The biggest argument against philanthropy is that they get to deduct it from their taxes, so instead of us as a society collectively deciding what to do with that money (provided you had a working democracy, of course), the billionaire gets to decide that. And some of that philanthropy money actually goes to causes that further undermine democracy. Just because something is a charity doesn't mean it does good. You can deduct donations to the federalist society or the heritage foundation, for example.

[gloomy@mander.xyz]

I can only repeat what I said before I anther comment. I'm not defending Gates. Of course there are things he should be criticised for. You bring up one example here.

What I am saying is, that you should not judge him on what he did four decades ago, but how he is acting today.

[reksas@sopuli.xyz]

you should define the word rich better in this context. Personally I have started to think word "rich" as negative thing, someone who has more than they need at expense of others, but I dont think that is very common way to think.

[goodthanks@lemmy.world]

You're right, the term is very subjective. The lower bound for me is owning multiple properties, owning a business and making money from the labour of others.

[viking_hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com]