I wrote the article. In it, I clearly outline that the topic of discussion is -- specifically -- childlike wonder and what happens when it mixes with wealth. Not "that every wealthy person should behave in a particular way."
> "Not "that every wealthy person should behave in a particular way.""
This was not the claim made by GP. He did not object to any attempts to prescribe behavior to billionaires, his objection was this:
> "if shit ain't being blown up, then who cares?"
Which is an admittedly snarky summary of your post, but accurate. As you said, your complaint is that people aren't doing enough to inspire childlike wonder.
Except they are - Borlaug as a good example. He saved literally billions of lives, revolutionized our every day lives, and has changed the face of food forever using science and technology. When he died, the bulk of HN didn't even know who he was.
Likewise, others in this thread have brought up a great many people - many of whom billionaires - who are doing "cool sci-fi shit", where "sci-fi" means more than putting stuff into low Earth orbit.
The answer to "why aren't more people doing cool sci-fi shit?" is "you need to look harder, because cool sci-fi shit doesn't always have a solid fuel booster attached to it".
Yes, but you place too great of emphasis on a certain kind of achievement/product as being indicative of this ideal mixing of childlike wonder + wealth. Or else how could you characterize Bill Gates' work as being somehow less creative or less wondrous. Bill Gates is trying to foster a world free of disease and poverty, which requires no less of a cool, sci-fi-brainstorm to accomplish...how is that less of a crazy childlike ambition than building an electric car?
In fact, I would argue even that Gates' path is even far more crazy and childlike. In order to do what he has done, he's had to get out of the relatively clean, logical bubble of technology and deal with messy, real world politics to accomplish his goals...and yet he still pushes forth in idealism. Contrast this with Musk, who after a less-than-favorable review in the New York Times, threw a fit. I'm not saying Musk was or wasn't justified, I'm pointing out that real world revolution takes both child-like wonder and an ability to handle out-of-your-realm realities...Gates is farther along in this difficult path than Musk, though I agree, Musk is more likely to have an Iron Man-like movie made about him.
I was struck by the observation taht revenue has been cut in half and production has fallen drastically within 4 years. as someone whoworks in the conventional film industry, this is pretty owrrying.
What's your business model for serving up HD video for free? I'm not really a porn consumer but I can see how it will be attractive, just not where your profit comes from.
This article isn't about the individual unmasking of a hacker, but more about the humanistic element of unintentionally leaving clues about your identity while masquerading online.
I'm pointing this out because you're in for a highly anti-climactic read.
He and Buffett seem to share a skepticism of setting in motion a large charitable foundation that will outlive them. Hence, Gates wants to directly oversee the spending, and spend it at a high enough rate that it uses up most of the money in his lifetime, rather than setting something up in a will. Buffett even conditioned his recurring donation to the Gates Foundation on Bill or Melinda Gates still being alive and in control of the Foundation.
