azemda

>Are many of them bots? You bet.

Why would someone create bots that apply to jobs? Just nuisance or any intention behind it?

The article in no way says that being a good programmer is sufficient to become a billionaire. It states that there were long-shots and coincidences that led to Bill Gates's stellar rise as Microsoft's founder, beyond his programming and business skills (It's not denying that his programming and business skills didn't contribute). The article states that, in competitive contexts, many have merit (programming + business skills, in the context of Bill Gates), but few succeed. What the article is effectively trying to say and the point you seem to miss is that, the the link between merit and outcome is tenuous and indirect at best.

Problems have solutions, Contradictions don't. Capitalism has Contradictions[1]

[1] https://thewire.in/economy/david-harvey-marxist-scholar-neo-...

Historian Guha put it nicely, "Modi doesn't share credit, not even with Lord Ram".

Why?

>Just like it's happening with websites

What is happening with websites?

Here is the OECD report http://www.oecd.org/education/ceri/arts.htm which stresses the importance of Arts in education and benefits of arts to students (even students of non-arts subjects). They also conclude that "The arts have been in existence since the earliest humans, are parts of all cultures, and are a major domain of human experience, just like science, technology, mathematics, and humanities. In that respect, they are important in their own rights for education."

Some Universities have Arts appreciation course for non-arts students who are interested in knowing, understanding and appreciating Art.

>just that they needn't do so on taxpayer money

May I know the rationale behind this? If I understand correctly, what you're trying to say is that letting people study these subjects on taxpayers money is a waste of public money, which I think is not true. There are people with Academic arts background who have contributed to the society. Even (for the sake of argument) if these are not economically rewarding areas of study, is it justified that the whole field of arts which has been there almost since the beginning of mankind to be not funded by the government just because the system under which we currently live doesn't find it profitable? Is it justified to deny access to an entire group of people who are interested to study Arts but they can't because they don't have the money to pursue it?.

>There are other ways to appreciate art and culture, such as visiting museums, reading books, watching documentaries or other youtube videos on these topics, etc. These are all free or much cheaper than a course in a college. You haven't demonstrated how an academic setting is better and worth the cost.

Academics is necessary to teach people how to create, understand and appreciate Art and Culture. People writing books (not necessarily, but most probably) have a degree in Language and Literature, people creating documentaries have a degree in Film-making etc. If you think these skills can be obtained from reading books, watching videos on YouTube etc, then the same thing can be said about STEM fields as well.