3 ms·

...but this part above strikes me as petty... Sorry if it came across that way; that was not my intent. Everyone's starting point is relative. No one ever ga

by edw519 16y ago

...but this part above strikes me as petty... Sorry if it came across that way; that was not my intent. Everyone's starting point is relative. No one ever gave me the gifts that Bill Gates got. But then again, I've had gifts that 99% of everyone who ever lived couldn't imagine. With those gifts comes responsibility. Whenever I have an opportunity to use my gifts to do good things, I think of how proud those who made sacrifices for me would be. I imagine many people here on hn feel the same way. Bill Gates never used his tremendous gifts for the greater good, only for the good of Microsoft. He never cared how big the pie got, only how close Microsoft's share of that pie approached 100%. The point of the paragraph wasn't to be petty or jealous; it was just to point out how the one with perhaps the biggest gifts of all didn't choose to share them like the rest of us would. Sorry if I implied anything else.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
mattmaroon 16y ago
From your comments its clear that you're zealously anti-capitalist and, as a result, anti-Microsoft, so you're simply not applying logic. Bill Gates did his legal duty. When you run a corporation you have a fiduciary responsibility to it. He would be doing something immoral if he didn't do what was best for Microsoft. The theory behind free market capitalism is that enough companies doing the same will average out to the best results. So the question is what do most people with the gifts Bill Gates was born into do? The answer is that they get a job in finance doing nothing of benefit to society and getting paid quite handsomely for it. Bill on the other hand founded a company that has, at current time, almost 90,000 employees. He helped bring computers to the masses. It's not petty jealousy that drives your comments, it's anti-capitalist sentiment. You also have a highly debatable view of what the universe would look like if not for Microsoft (I for one suspect you wouldn't be on this site) but that too is a side effect of zealousness rather than the result of careful reasoning.
- rbanffy 16y ago
  > He would be doing something immoral if he didn't do what was best for Microsoft Look how loved the company is today. Was what he did really the best he could have done for Microsoft? Wouldn't a kinder, gentler Microsoft, one that helped a healthy market thrive, be better? Would the smaller slice of a larger pie be larger than Microsoft's current pie? > they get a job in finance doing nothing of benefit to society I suppose you assume VCs exist in a vacuum. No. > He helped bring computers to the masses. No. Jobs and Wozniak did. Jack Tramiel did. Gates did nothing like that.
  - mfukar 16y ago
    Really? What's the most popular OS, again?
    - rbanffy 16y ago
      Windows, but why is it relevant to this discussion? Windows appeared well after personal computers became popular. In fact, it only became relevant when business computers invaded the space previously dominated by home computers. Its dominance started in the 90's after 3.0 was launched. On Tramiel thing, Commodore built some very popular personal computers that were incredibly capable for their prices. Many of us (I am not among them) got introduced to personal computers with Commodore boxes. He later moved on to Atari and brought some of the cheapest 32-bit home computers one could buy, years before 386s could be called home computers. Attributing to Gates what others did does not help further your argument.
      - mfukar 16y ago
        I don't really see how one could speak about wide adoption of the personal computer and not count Microsoft in the equation. The "diverse", as other fellow HNers have kindly put it, computing environment of Atari, Apple, IBM et al was a complete nightmare for developer and user alike. Even if it weren't needed, since Z80, 6502, Motorola's 68000 as well as the variants of CP/M were entering oblivion, Microsoft slowly helped change that gradually, and slowly came to dominance with Windows (the reasons are obvious now, with hindsight). Yet how one may deny that Gates brought the PC to the masses with knowledge of the above are beyond me. Maybe a comparison with GEOS is in line..
lionhearted 16y ago
> Everyone's starting point is relative. No one ever gave me the gifts that Bill Gates got. But then again, I've had gifts that 99% of everyone who ever lived couldn't imagine. I don't have too much more to add, just wanted to say we fairly similar to you, and think you're an awesome contributor on HN, and wanted to let you know that. Absolutely no disrespect intended and it'd be good to break bread sometime if we're ever in the same place, I've learned a lot from your comments. I very slightly disagree that with gifts comes responsibility, because I think only an individual can assign responsibility to themselves outside of the basics of not intruding on other people. But I'm probably strange, most people don't think that way. With that said, I assign high responsibility levels to myself (service, charity, helping people, good citizenship, protecting the weak, serving the strong and virtuous, and those who wish to be strong and virtuous). Anyways, that's somewhat a minor point - I wanted to comment more to show some respect. You're one of the best commentors in HN history and I've learned a lot from you.
yosho 16y ago
I completely agree. Paris Hilton was also given a lot of freebies early in life...looked how that one turned out. Early advantages don't always produce exceptional results, often times it can lead to the exact opposite.
- code_duck 16y ago
  Seems to have turned out pretty well. She's famous for no other reason.
  - statictype 16y ago
    What good has she done for society? Isn't that the metric we're using here? Not whether she has done well for herself.
    - loewenskind 16y ago
      No one is calling her a hero.
- dkarl 16y ago
  Paris Hilton did a clever job turning what she was given (which didn't include talent or beauty), multiplying it manifold, and making a crapload of money out of it. From a purely economic point of view, she did much better than the vast majority of people born into her class.
TGJ 16y ago
There is perceived responsibility that comes with those gifts. He could have just blown the money and everyone would have moved on. Plus your next statement is just baloney. The greater good? You mean the good that would have affected you? The man can do with his money as he sees fit, who are you to tell him what to do or judge him when he does it.
- macrael 16y ago
  The title of this post is "Bill Gates, Hero".
ced 16y ago
Bill Gates never used his tremendous gifts for the greater good, only for the good of Microsoft. Wait, what? Are you arguing that his foundation is some kind of elaborate scam?
- jacquesm 16y ago
  For sure it isn't a scam. But it is somewhat reminiscent of a capo getting absolution for his sins in return for a gift to the church.
- rbanffy 16y ago
  > Are you arguing that his foundation is some kind of elaborate scam? I wouldn't rule that out. It has donated Microsoft products (in markets where alternatives could gain a foothold) and money for vaccines (we shouldn't forget Gates has a lot invested in the biotech sector). In the end, some of those donations return to him. I am not saying his philanthropism is inherently evil. I am just acknowledging the possibility it's may not be completely devoid of self-interest.

by edw519 16y ago

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

mattmaroon 16y ago

From your comments its clear that you're zealously anti-capitalist and, as a result, anti-Microsoft, so you're simply not applying logic. Bill Gates did his legal duty. When you run a corporation you have a fiduciary responsibility to it. He would be doing something immoral if he didn't do what was best for Microsoft. The theory behind free market capitalism is that enough companies doing the same will average out to the best results. So the question is what do most people with the gifts Bill Gates was born into do? The answer is that they get a job in finance doing nothing of benefit to society and getting paid quite handsomely for it. Bill on the other hand founded a company that has, at current time, almost 90,000 employees. He helped bring computers to the masses. It's not petty jealousy that drives your comments, it's anti-capitalist sentiment. You also have a highly debatable view of what the universe would look like if not for Microsoft (I for one suspect you wouldn't be on this site) but that too is a side effect of zealousness rather than the result of careful reasoning.

rbanffy 16y ago
> He would be doing something immoral if he didn't do what was best for Microsoft Look how loved the company is today. Was what he did really the best he could have done for Microsoft? Wouldn't a kinder, gentler Microsoft, one that helped a healthy market thrive, be better? Would the smaller slice of a larger pie be larger than Microsoft's current pie? > they get a job in finance doing nothing of benefit to society I suppose you assume VCs exist in a vacuum. No. > He helped bring computers to the masses. No. Jobs and Wozniak did. Jack Tramiel did. Gates did nothing like that.
- mfukar 16y ago
  Really? What's the most popular OS, again?
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    Windows, but why is it relevant to this discussion? Windows appeared well after personal computers became popular. In fact, it only became relevant when business computers invaded the space previously dominated by home computers. Its dominance started in the 90's after 3.0 was launched. On Tramiel thing, Commodore built some very popular personal computers that were incredibly capable for their prices. Many of us (I am not among them) got introduced to personal computers with Commodore boxes. He later moved on to Atari and brought some of the cheapest 32-bit home computers one could buy, years before 386s could be called home computers. Attributing to Gates what others did does not help further your argument.
    - mfukar 16y ago
      I don't really see how one could speak about wide adoption of the personal computer and not count Microsoft in the equation. The "diverse", as other fellow HNers have kindly put it, computing environment of Atari, Apple, IBM et al was a complete nightmare for developer and user alike. Even if it weren't needed, since Z80, 6502, Motorola's 68000 as well as the variants of CP/M were entering oblivion, Microsoft slowly helped change that gradually, and slowly came to dominance with Windows (the reasons are obvious now, with hindsight). Yet how one may deny that Gates brought the PC to the masses with knowledge of the above are beyond me. Maybe a comparison with GEOS is in line..

lionhearted 16y ago

> Everyone's starting point is relative. No one ever gave me the gifts that Bill Gates got. But then again, I've had gifts that 99% of everyone who ever lived couldn't imagine. I don't have too much more to add, just wanted to say we fairly similar to you, and think you're an awesome contributor on HN, and wanted to let you know that. Absolutely no disrespect intended and it'd be good to break bread sometime if we're ever in the same place, I've learned a lot from your comments. I very slightly disagree that with gifts comes responsibility, because I think only an individual can assign responsibility to themselves outside of the basics of not intruding on other people. But I'm probably strange, most people don't think that way. With that said, I assign high responsibility levels to myself (service, charity, helping people, good citizenship, protecting the weak, serving the strong and virtuous, and those who wish to be strong and virtuous). Anyways, that's somewhat a minor point - I wanted to comment more to show some respect. You're one of the best commentors in HN history and I've learned a lot from you.

yosho 16y ago

I completely agree. Paris Hilton was also given a lot of freebies early in life...looked how that one turned out. Early advantages don't always produce exceptional results, often times it can lead to the exact opposite.

code_duck 16y ago
Seems to have turned out pretty well. She's famous for no other reason.
- statictype 16y ago
  What good has she done for society? Isn't that the metric we're using here? Not whether she has done well for herself.
  - loewenskind 16y ago
    No one is calling her a hero.
dkarl 16y ago
Paris Hilton did a clever job turning what she was given (which didn't include talent or beauty), multiplying it manifold, and making a crapload of money out of it. From a purely economic point of view, she did much better than the vast majority of people born into her class.

TGJ 16y ago

There is perceived responsibility that comes with those gifts. He could have just blown the money and everyone would have moved on. Plus your next statement is just baloney. The greater good? You mean the good that would have affected you? The man can do with his money as he sees fit, who are you to tell him what to do or judge him when he does it.

macrael 16y ago
The title of this post is "Bill Gates, Hero".

ced 16y ago

Bill Gates never used his tremendous gifts for the greater good, only for the good of Microsoft. Wait, what? Are you arguing that his foundation is some kind of elaborate scam?

jacquesm 16y ago
For sure it isn't a scam. But it is somewhat reminiscent of a capo getting absolution for his sins in return for a gift to the church.
rbanffy 16y ago
> Are you arguing that his foundation is some kind of elaborate scam? I wouldn't rule that out. It has donated Microsoft products (in markets where alternatives could gain a foothold) and money for vaccines (we shouldn't forget Gates has a lot invested in the biotech sector). In the end, some of those donations return to him. I am not saying his philanthropism is inherently evil. I am just acknowledging the possibility it's may not be completely devoid of self-interest.