4 ms·

> Submit a question below and we will answer the best ones in the near future. No you won't. You will select some questions you like, and answer them. They wil

by bambax 9y ago

> Submit a question below and we will answer the best ones in the near future. No you won't. You will select some questions you like, and answer them. They will not necessarily be the "best" (whatever that means... according to what criteria??) or the ones most people would like to see answered. Just the ones you feel like answering. A more democratic system would be to let people vote for questions, and promise to answer the ones with the most upvotes. Or maybe (why not) offer to answer ALL questions.

tjoff 9y ago
I didn't think they picked "convenient" questions. Also, letting the internet vote always comes with a risk. I think they did alright.
Agathos 9y ago
That might lead to better (or more challenging) questions, or they might find themselves obligated to answer 10 variations of "Questiony McQuestionFace." Online polls are weird.
loceng 9y ago
"Tough" is relative to the individuals' experiences, it's okay if they select different questions as priorities than you would.
- bambax 9y ago
  They can do whatever they like of course! But the way they constantly sell themselves and their openness and simplicity and whatnot is hypocritical.
  - loceng 9y ago
    I'm not sure they're efforting to sell themselves as open, it more feels like people are putting them on a pedestal because of Bill Gates' financial success and notability, and giving them unchecked admiration - however they will have a unique world perspective and that's important to hear so we can contrast it with where we're at in our own understanding.
jasode 9y ago
>A more democratic system would be to let people vote for questions, and promise to answer the ones with the most upvotes. Internet "democratic voting" sounds great in theory but history has shown that in practice, it just gets hijacked.[1] Basically, the top most upvoted question would end up being, "What is Bill and Melinda's favorite sex position?" ... or something similar. [1] http://mentalfloss.com/article/52524/15-polls-hijacked-internet http://mentalfloss.com/article/52524/15-polls-hijacked-inter...
sammoorhouse 9y ago
Having a bad day, mate? Everything alright?
- somesayso 9y ago
  Overreacting mate? Everything alright?
dictum 9y ago
Not even I have the patience/desire/stomach to answer most of the questions the general public could ask about me, and I'm a not a famous billionaire with a well-known business past and well-known philanthropic present of whom, naturally, the masses might inquire much harder questions.
lkbm 9y ago
"Are you imposing your values on other cultures?" and "Is it fair that you have so much influence?" are close to the touch question I expected them to not have. The big complaint I see from the left is that billionaires get to determine the direction of philanthropy--two unelected people get to impose their ideas about public education, for example. That said, while those questions are close to the big tough question, I don't think their answers really addressed them in an adequately thoughtful way. (I think the Gates Foundation is mostly making good choices with their philanthropy, but maybe we just got lucky. How about [Soros|Koch] (pick whichever you like least)?)
- bambax 9y ago
  None of the 10 questions listed is "tough", and at least one (out of ten, so 10%) is of tabloid level: "What happens when the two of you disagree" -- the answer includes the nugget that there's a sculpture in front of their house, of two birds looking ahead in the same direction. Isn't that something. If one doesn't like the idea of Internet voting or answering all questions, then let them hold a press conference with real journalists. But this is not it; this is nothing; this is a show with pictures of the couple laughing and showing a serious face in front of poor people; this is just marketing. An interesting question would be, how do you justify speciesism[1]. When they describe how they're "optimists" and how the world is getting "better", they're obviously only talking about humans. The world is getting much much worse for every species of living things, except (some) humans, so the only way to consider that the world is indeed getting better in general is to consider that humans are so superior to any other living thing that any amount of suffering / extinction of other species is more than offset by the marginal utility we get out of it. If you're religious, maybe your religion offers a way to accept that (depending on the religion). But if, like the Gates (or me), you're atheists, how does this work exactly? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism

by bambax 9y ago

tjoff 9y ago

I didn't think they picked "convenient" questions. Also, letting the internet vote always comes with a risk. I think they did alright.

Agathos 9y ago

That might lead to better (or more challenging) questions, or they might find themselves obligated to answer 10 variations of "Questiony McQuestionFace." Online polls are weird.

loceng 9y ago

"Tough" is relative to the individuals' experiences, it's okay if they select different questions as priorities than you would.

bambax 9y ago
They can do whatever they like of course! But the way they constantly sell themselves and their openness and simplicity and whatnot is hypocritical.
- loceng 9y ago
  I'm not sure they're efforting to sell themselves as open, it more feels like people are putting them on a pedestal because of Bill Gates' financial success and notability, and giving them unchecked admiration - however they will have a unique world perspective and that's important to hear so we can contrast it with where we're at in our own understanding.

jasode 9y ago

>A more democratic system would be to let people vote for questions, and promise to answer the ones with the most upvotes. Internet "democratic voting" sounds great in theory but history has shown that in practice, it just gets hijacked.[1] Basically, the top most upvoted question would end up being, "What is Bill and Melinda's favorite sex position?" ... or something similar. [1] http://mentalfloss.com/article/52524/15-polls-hijacked-internet http://mentalfloss.com/article/52524/15-polls-hijacked-inter...

sammoorhouse 9y ago

Having a bad day, mate? Everything alright?

somesayso 9y ago
Overreacting mate? Everything alright?

dictum 9y ago

Not even I have the patience/desire/stomach to answer most of the questions the general public could ask about me, and I'm a not a famous billionaire with a well-known business past and well-known philanthropic present of whom, naturally, the masses might inquire much harder questions.

lkbm 9y ago

"Are you imposing your values on other cultures?" and "Is it fair that you have so much influence?" are close to the touch question I expected them to not have. The big complaint I see from the left is that billionaires get to determine the direction of philanthropy--two unelected people get to impose their ideas about public education, for example. That said, while those questions are close to the big tough question, I don't think their answers really addressed them in an adequately thoughtful way. (I think the Gates Foundation is mostly making good choices with their philanthropy, but maybe we just got lucky. How about [Soros|Koch] (pick whichever you like least)?)

bambax 9y ago
None of the 10 questions listed is "tough", and at least one (out of ten, so 10%) is of tabloid level: "What happens when the two of you disagree" -- the answer includes the nugget that there's a sculpture in front of their house, of two birds looking ahead in the same direction. Isn't that something. If one doesn't like the idea of Internet voting or answering all questions, then let them hold a press conference with real journalists. But this is not it; this is nothing; this is a show with pictures of the couple laughing and showing a serious face in front of poor people; this is just marketing. An interesting question would be, how do you justify speciesism[1]. When they describe how they're "optimists" and how the world is getting "better", they're obviously only talking about humans. The world is getting much much worse for every species of living things, except (some) humans, so the only way to consider that the world is indeed getting better in general is to consider that humans are so superior to any other living thing that any amount of suffering / extinction of other species is more than offset by the marginal utility we get out of it. If you're religious, maybe your religion offers a way to accept that (depending on the religion). But if, like the Gates (or me), you're atheists, how does this work exactly? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism