Hacker News Reader

Comment by sukuriant | Hacker News Reader

And now. Whatever you do. No. Whatever. You. Do. Do. NOT. Turn back on this promise. Make it happen. No ifs, ands, or buts. Period.

And colleges. If somehow, something terrible happens, and the money stops coming in. Let those kids finish for free anyway. Anything less is the newest worst thing that could happen to these kids and then adults.

[edit: I am curious about the downvotes. From what I gathered, the people that these donors have chosen to help are the downtrodden of this area. Much of their life may have been spent in a world of people not fulfilling their world. Fathers leaving, etc. The last thing these kids need is for yet another promise to be left unfulfilled, be it by red-tape or just some series of unfortunate events. Despite that, these children need to have the results of the promise fulfilled.]

View on HN

Re downvotes -- using periods like that for emphasis (in the first line of your post) is like typing your message in all caps for emphasis. It makes your argument harder to read, but it doesn't make it more persuasive. And it makes people not really want to talk with you -- you're signaling that you're not going to engage them intellectually, you're just going to get offended and shout at them if they disagree with you.

That's reasonable

The down-votes may be in response to the style of your prose and that your comment is directed to people that (most likely) do not read this forum. If you want to engage with the other forum readers, perhaps you should have said something along the lines of: "I worry that this funding promise will be broken if the donors lose some of their wealth. If that occurs, the children's lives may be worse than if the promise were never made in the first place."

I happen to disagree with that sentiment. I understand that giving and then taking away can be worse than no action, but I doubt that the donors' wealth is so volatile that the funds would run out before a large cohort graduates college.

Forgive me; but, you say you disagree with the sentiment, but you disagree with it on the bounds that the thing you're disagreeing with is unlikely to happen. That doesn't change the damage that could/would happen if the unfortunate thing DID happen; and that shouldn't cause you to disagree with the sentiment, from my understanding. Perhaps I'm understanding you incorrectly?

I read what you said as:

* Taking A away after giving A is worse than never giving A in the first place.

* People giving A are probably not in a position to lose A.

* Therefore, I disagree that losing A would be a bad thing.

The article stated

> blind to family income levels, to pupils’ grades and even to disciplinary and criminal records...

That doesn't stop bureaucracy from changing that decision or for the people that are donating to be sent to jail/etc before they can finish their promises.

Put the bong down, and reread this tomorrow.It may not have occurred to you, but the norm in phalinthropy is to establish legal structures at the outset which prevent those sorts of outcomes. You appear to think the money has either been handed over as a lump sum or is being delivered on an ad-hoc basis. Neither is likely.

I don't smoke pot, thanks.

That said, I didn't know that detail how these things usually work, though that does make sense and pleases me to hear.

Ah, I see what you were saying. The "criminal records" there is in reference to the children, not those providing the money. I was concerned about the people providing the money.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com