awedisee

Thanks for doing the internet version of texting someone and then throwing your phone into a river.

I hate articles like this because they use the steelman effect and hope you don't realize it.

"Steel manning (or steelmanning) is a rhetorical technique that involves strengthening the opponent’s position to its strongest possible form before critiquing it."

Allow me to explain.

In the beginning of the article it glosses over what it deems as the three waves of philanthropy.

What it does not mention is this is an entirely new and untraditional way of viewing the american "three waves of philanthropy". Traditionally this is the version used in philanthropy research:

Wave 1 (1890–1930): Institution‑building

Wave 2 (1930–1980): Scientific philanthropy

Wave 3 (1980–present): Tech‑driven, global, scalable philanthropy

This model is long‑arc, spanning 140 years.

As you can see " Obama era" would lie within the current 3rd wave.

This is problematic and highly gratuitous to the Gates foundation. I would consider the Gates foundation as being Philanthrocapitalists. Philanthrocapitalism is a way of doing philanthropy, which mirrors the way that business is done in the for-profit world. It may involve venture philanthropy that actively invests in social programs to pursue specific philanthropic goals that would yield return on investment over the long term, or in a more passive form whereby "social investors" benefit from investing in socially-responsible programs.

The Gates foundation recorded 8.08B in revenue with only 8.015B in spending creating a surplus and that's just in the foundation itself. While Gates himself has verbalized his wishes to close the foundation by 2045 - talk is cheap and actions speak louder so only time will tell.

What I think this article and its writer is TRYING to do is not mapping philanthropy across U.S. history but rather mapping how tech ideology evolved across three political eras: Bush → Obama → Trump.

This isn't the problem. The problem is taking a definition of a topic you know nothing about and adapting it for your own use and then pretending its a standard form of measurement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philanthropy

https://www.gatesfoundation.org/about/financials/annual-repo...

https://www.gatesfoundation.org/ideas/media-center/press-rel...

I had no idea Jimmy Carr was a graduated physics student! Surely he's not just some comedian who is talking about a subject he doesn't truly understand and then trying and convince others that his level of knowledge is far greater than those that study this subject.

Way cool!

I don't understand what this means "It doesn't seem possible for Spacex to revolutionize the world, change it: sure they do...for 20+ years but they fail to revolutionize for 20+ years.And the reasons are obvious."

Please explain.

I guess no one is solving it because the problem is behind a pay wall. :/

Singapore and China hold strong economic ties. Furthermore if the Chinese government asks one of its citizens to do something the citizen must keep in mind where the rest of their family lives. There are countless articles of how the CCP will do things like fire an aunt or uncle, or deny a sister or brother access to college for not complying with their wishes.

Do you think Singapore as an independent country is strong enough to keep the Chinese government out?

This a nice qoute and all but China has a civil-Military program that allows their government to annex any necessary technology for their military but also puts strict building practices on civil made projects.

What makes anyone think that China as government won't do exactly what she fears, which is putting this battery technology inside drones, or humanoids for war fighting? The difference here is China won't ask.

You saw a movie where microscopic blocks were pushed around using lasers?

Everything you need to know is before it. All good

I get the article and the take and I don't think you are wrong, but I would like you to further your thinking and come up with some improvements or fixes.

I get it you may not work in this industry or know the workings of how an AI company seeking frontier AGI WOULD operate but its helpful in connecting ideas and concepts by adding a proposed solution if for nothing more than to show the direction of your thinking.

Sure some people may talk smack about your idea but I've learned that the difference between someone who complains for the argument of complaints and those who complains to fix things have different forms of thinking. The latter may be wrong but its an indicator of HOW that person thinks which is always valuable.

Thanks for the blog.

Or maybe your app can teach you!

How about you learn how to put together a functioning website instead of trying to sell a vibe coded app that you probably don't know how it works.

30% of these posts are videos. Please spend your time going through and sending your message to everyone.

Behind a pay wall so it must not be important.

Based take little dude. Gamers all care very much about "openness". Did you forget that in 1985 Nintendo created the first hardware-based security system designed to prevent unlicensed and low-quality games from running.

Gamers used to own the games they purchased via cassettes, disks, and later even digital copies. Now through platforms like Epic and Steam you are provided a digital "license" to play the game.

ALL of this speaks to the "openness" of gaming and it is ALL important to gamers.

As previously stated though, game creators have been forced to choose the platforms they can create their games for. By the 90s the majority of personal computers were running MS-DOS and Steve Jobs had a base take on games being "toys" and did not belong on Macintosh products.

Fast forward to the early Oughts and you see games like Angry Birds and Candy Crush making millions by producing games on ARM technology which really pushed the entire industry forward to focus multi-platform gaming outside of the tradition routes of either PC or console or both.

Furthermore triple A studios led the charge and made big decisions that smaller studios would follow until around the release of Cyberpunk 2077. This in my opinion was the big turning point that gamers decides to act against large studios from all of the decision making that has turned a relative open system to a closed system.

The invention of the Proton protocol to allow gaming on Linux Machines is FORCING industry to ABIDE by the wishes of the customer. The gamers. The gamers are FINALLY winning!

This isn't just about openness on operating systems and being able to own the thing you purchase. Its also about efficiency. Windows is a bloat farm that has what feels like a million service hosts running in the background sending telemetry data to NOT me. Furthermore, if windows is not optimized to use your hardware efficiently, why would your favorite game?

Changes like the Proton protocol are bridges to re-align the supply/demand curve by forcing the customer and producer back to the negotiation table so the gamers voice can be heard.

In closing, gamers have had limited options due to technological limitations, vendor lock ins, corporate anti-competitive practices, monopoly exploitation, or predatory pricings.

With inventions like ARM and Proton protocol, gamers have a louder voice to force game makers implement "openness" in their products.