Hacker News Reader

Comment by heurisko | Hacker News Reader

In my mind, I compare Jeff Bezos with Bill Gates.

I have often disliked the practices of Microsoft, and don't think creating benevolent billionaires is the best way to solve the world's problems, but I have to credit the fact that Bill Gates has actually tried to change the world for the better through the Gates foundation.

In comparison, Jeff Bezos's aspiration to travel into space seems to me mawkish (to use the same word as Russell Brand https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhMY23kgcKQ).

Jeff Bezos says that space "changes your relationship with this planet, this humanity, it's one earth". It seems to me completely out-of-touch with the reputation of Amazon.

View on HN

I disagree. How much innovation did we lose because of 90s Microsoft? We might be 5 years more advanced in tech if Bill Gates hadn’t been such an asshole. The same goes for Intel, Amazon, etc.. They're stifling innovation for their own personal gain.

im not sure who said it, but theres a quote that said something like "in 150 years the world will not remember microsoft or any of these tech companies but they will remember the legacy of bill gates's philanthropy."

5 years of lost tech advancement means nothing to history.

What would we remember his philanthropy for? Is there something yet to come or are the mosquito nets the thing to remember?

Polio?

In 150 years people will absolutely remember Microsoft and Amazon, just like we remember standard oil, Carnegie steel, and bell. Though, I get the point of the statement.

In your view, what does tech advancement mean though? Its easier to discuss data, rather than argue over opinion. We did get better hardware, better client software from other vendors, etc. Or are you limiting innovation to mean they didn't improve their browser? Personally, I think the hardware wasn't ready in the 90s for full blown web-apps. Just look at the computing requirements of most websites today. For the hardware that I had in the 90s, I could barely play mp3's and run 1-2 apps without the audio skipping.

When you say, "creating benevolent billionaires", who or what do you think is doing the creating?

Gates is trying to help Monsanto get a strangle hold on farming in Africa.

Monsanto.

Do you have a source on that? I would think that would be spammed in every reddit/HN/lobsters thread if that were true.

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matte...

For starters.

How about this? "Gates opposed waiving some provisions of the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, or TRIPS. A waiver would allow member nations to stop enforcing a set of COVID-19-related patents for the duration of the pandemic so that low- and middle-income countries can produce or import generic versions of vaccines.

Gates met with U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai last week to make the case for protecting these patents..."

https://www.devex.com/news/gates-foundation-reverses-course-...

https://www.salon.com/2021/04/26/bill-gates-says-no-to-shari...

He would rather poor people die than let IP rules be weakened, even for a a little while.

The reason you don't hear about it is because he is one of the wealthiest men in the world and he has a lot of power/influence. All that money buys really good PR.

I mean the guy strengthened his friendship with Jeffry Epstein AFTER he was released from jail for being convicted of procuring a child for prostitution.

Are you really trying to present a Guardian article with a straight face?

This is an example of the intellectual honesty that is presented in this sort of source:

> Who knows what this corporate-speak really means, but in all probability it heralds the big time introduction of GM soya in southern Africa.

And their smokin gun? An insignificant investment of 20M dollars from the Gates Foundation on Cargill.

If you really intend to sell your conspiracy theories as something somewhat credible, you should start by addressing the sources you pick to base your wild claims on.

Yes.

There's so much hyperbole crammed into one statement that it's hard to provide much of a serious response. Where would I start?

How much is Bill Gates actually involved? Why is Monsanto so bad? What is the stranglehold? Are Africans not allowed their own agency here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seed_saving#United_States

also:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#Legal_affairs

There's so much! Enjoy the read.

You made a claim and then simply dumped links leaving the reader to connect the dots. There is nothing in those links even close to what you were claiming. This is simply not a good way to engage in a discussion. $.02

Monsanto's villainous behaviour is well defined in those direct links. Bill's choice to work with them and the reasons that might be an issue are left as an exercise to the reader.

Sorry, you are not making any point or any sense. I understand you have an axe to grind, but in the very least you should be able to present any case whatsoever to defend your position based on tangible facts and real-world evidence.

If you have neither of that to present and feel compelled to hand-waive your way out of answering simple questions them that should be enough to make you reconsider what you are really doing and what problems you need to address.

There's no case, just facts. Gates is helping Monsanto. Monsanto is super evil (links above show that). Parent should add that stuff to his consideration for BG.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com