Linus Torvalds and Bill Gates Meet for the First Time Ever
Technology
226
Beiträge
110
Kommentatoren
1.0k
Aufrufe
-
::: spoiler spoiler
sdfsafsafsdaf
:::He is not a good person. But the foundation has done some good work.
seems like a justification to me dude. you're literally justifying his indiscretions, that you even call out, by saying the charity he heads "has done some good work".
And I sure as hell don’t white wash Bill Gates. You don’t get to that level of wealth and dominance without cracking skulls and ruining lives every step of the way.
I don't know if you're actually being misleading or confusing by accident but calling attention to it being "nuanced" is a clear indicator that your argument supports that the "ends justify the means".
-
He is not a good person. But the foundation has done some good work.
seems like a justification to me dude. you're literally justifying his indiscretions, that you even call out, by saying the charity he heads "has done some good work".
And I sure as hell don’t white wash Bill Gates. You don’t get to that level of wealth and dominance without cracking skulls and ruining lives every step of the way.
I don't know if you're actually being misleading or confusing by accident but calling attention to it being "nuanced" is a clear indicator that your argument supports that the "ends justify the means".
::: spoiler spoiler
sdfsafsafsdaf
::: -
I hate billionaires as much as the next gal, but I think comparing Bill Gates to Hitler is a bit extreme
I didn't compare them, but in your mind you understood it that way.
I used Hitler as an example, an extreme one, but still an example of "the ends justify the means".
could have use any number of examples, but I went with one I thought everyone could relate to. clearly I miscalculated the selfishness of modern day philosophies.
-
I didn't compare them, but in your mind you understood it that way.
I used Hitler as an example, an extreme one, but still an example of "the ends justify the means".
could have use any number of examples, but I went with one I thought everyone could relate to. clearly I miscalculated the selfishness of modern day philosophies.
::: spoiler spoiler
sdfsafsafsdaf
::: -
::: spoiler spoiler
sdfsafsafsdaf
:::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?
-
It's still giving money away though? Why would you want there to be taxes on charity?
Because they are tax avoidance mechanism first and charity seconds.
Money is a brokering system of power, charitues being tax free makes these entities unaccountable to democratic institurions.
That's how we ended up with this infection of corrupt megachurches.
The "prosperity gospel" is billionaire-serving propaganda. It empowers their formation, growth and necessary abuses that come from such widespread exploitation.
-
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?
::: spoiler spoiler
sdfsafsafsdaf
::: -
::: spoiler spoiler
sdfsafsafsdaf
:::It capitalized Wash because spell checker is the leaf on the wind.
-
Torvalds is still very active on the Linux kernel. As far as I know, he's in charge of it and makes major decisions about its direction.
Bill Gates retired from Microsoft in 2008.
That means there are highschool seniors who weren't even alive while Bill Gates was at Microsoft. Interns might not even know who he is.
-
Bill Gates and Linus Torvalds have apparently never met in person before, despite their pseudo-rivalry.
Too bad Steve Wozniak wasn't there too lol
-
That means there are highschool seniors who weren't even alive while Bill Gates was at Microsoft. Interns might not even know who he is.
I'm sure if they work there they know who he is though lol but possibly I suppose
-
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?
You're being obtuse. The nuance here is that Bill Gates being.a bad person and his charity org having done some good in the world are facts that are not necessarily dependent or correlated with each other. That's all. The fact that Gates might be using his org to prop his image is also a consequence of his character, and doesn't take away from the good the charity has done. Or would you rather the charity didn't exist at all just so your thirst for consistency would be appeased, all the while people would be dying?
-
Bill Gates and Linus Torvalds have apparently never met in person before, despite their pseudo-rivalry.
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.
-
Torvalds is still very active on the Linux kernel. As far as I know, he's in charge of it and makes major decisions about its direction.
Bill Gates retired from Microsoft in 2008.
Linus still approves the changes in the kernel. His main baby for the past 15 years or so has been GIT.
-
That means there are highschool seniors who weren't even alive while Bill Gates was at Microsoft. Interns might not even know who he is.
DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS
-
Making money/influence. It's such a scam his "Bill and Melinda Charity" (no taxes on charities).
Search the web for “polio”
-
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.
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.
-
Linus still approves the changes in the kernel. His main baby for the past 15 years or so has been GIT.
I think he maintained git at its inception for like 6 months and then passed it off to someone else, but I could be completely mistaken.
-
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.
Big tech designing their products to be overly simple is one of the driving forces behind the average user having poor patience and aptitude for tech.
-
Bill Gates and Linus Torvalds have apparently never met in person before, despite their pseudo-rivalry.
Top comment on that page is perfect:
One wrote their own operating system incorporating others ideas on operating systems, the other's mom bought theirs.
