It's actually the perfect analogy, you just can't see it because you're stuck in the bubble.

DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS

it's a nonprofit he directly benefits from because it has his name on it. he directly benefits from it by using it as a way to sway political power. he directly benefits from it through financial gains paid through the organization.

the entire concept of the foundation is contingent on his financial success. something of which he is well known for destroying lives for.

so tell me, how many of those ruined lives were acceptable for the good that his charity does? how many more lives must be ruined for the good to continue to be acceptable? would you find it acceptable if your life was destroyed to continue the good his charity does? would you be willing to accept your life to be ruined or ended to support the continuation of his charity?

I don't understand why you don't see the obvious correlation between the two so I'll over simplify it.

bad man makes bad money making people suffer. bad money makes good stuff happen under bad man name. bad man still bad man doing good stuff for bad reasons.

you sit and justify his actions by arguing he's doing good things. I question if he's doing good things just to do them or if they're a byproduct of him "cleansing" his name. after all, bad men do bad things. Ever heard of Alfred Nobel?

Search the web for “polio”

::: spoiler spoiler
sdfsafsafsdaf
:::

Lol no. Of all the sleazy and greasy millionaires, Gates is one of the few whose actions speaks for themselves. Dude has been doing noble causes for most of my life.

I'm all for talking shit about the rich, but it better be true.

It's still giving money away though? Why would you want there to be taxes on charity?

::: spoiler spoiler
sdfsafsafsdaf
:::

Sounds like you're cherry picking both; I've seen plenty of garbage that costs money as well.

Keep in mind this status quo is already the result of decades of oversimplification. I am not saying everyone needs to compile the Linux kernel in order to have a computer. I'm saying you should have a basic level of familiarity with the computer you're using, same as any other tool.

You should know how to check and top up your engine oil, change a tire in an emergency, etc, if you're going to own a car.
You should know how to safely handle, operate, store, transport, and clean your firearm if you're going to own a gun.
You should know how to empty the chamber or bag, clean the filters correctly, what not to suck up and how to troubleshoot if you do, if you're going to own a vacuum.
You should know how to operate it, when and how it should be cleaned, and what not to do while it's running, if you're going to own an electric range.
You should know the difference between a web browser and your computer's filesystem, the difference between RAM and storage, and that you can Internet search most errors to judge whether you're comfortable trying to fix them yourself or not, if you're going to own a computer.

There will ALWAYS be a point where it's more worth paying someone else instead of learning something yourself. But it's about the cost-benefit analysis, and the threshold for what's considered "intricate" is a depressingly low bar where computers are concerned. As I'm sure you are well aware.

No, it's not. We have other shit to do and very limited quality time.

It's actually the perfect analogy, you just can't see it because you're stuck in the bubble.

Name one bad historical person that didn't do at least some good.

Your moral compass is broken.

I've said this before here, but techy people vastly overestimate both the ability and the patience of the typical user, and it's the reason so few people use FOSS products.

Products from big tech aimed at private individuals are designed to be as simple to use as possible, which is why they're so popular.

His pr firm really works well.

Check out when elon ditched his pr firm. He went frm that loved lil crazy fun type to what he really is.

I've said this before here, but techy people vastly overestimate both the ability and the patience of the typical user, and it's the reason so few people use FOSS products.

Products from big tech aimed at private individuals are designed to be as simple to use as possible, which is why they're so popular.

That has to be one of the most out of touch takes I've seen in a while. You're basically saying that things should be intentionally more complicated, and you expect the result to be people just power through and getting used to things being that way, instead of just stopping.

Both Torvalds and Gates are nerds... Gates decided to monetize it and Torvalds decided to give it away.

But without Microsoft's "PC on every desktop" vision for the '90s, we may not have seen such an increased demand for server infrastructure which is all running the Linux kernel now.

Arguably Torvalds' strategy had a greater impact than Gates because now many of us carry his kernel in our pocket. But I think both needed each other to get where we are today.

Do you hunt for all of your food and cook it from absolute scratch?

I bet you sometimes use a grocery store.