5 ms·

It's not particularly interesting or productive to compare the best of one set to the worst of another.

jhamilton 6y ago
It is when the worst of one set has the means to do much more good than the best of the other set, and yet squanders it in their greed.
- founditincache 6y ago
  The vast majority would behave the same in that position. Are you sure you wouldn't? We're far too likely to see things as character flaws when looking outward and as circumstance when looking inward.
happytoexplain 6y ago
I couldn't disagree more strongly when the things being compared are the wellbeing of humans.
save_ferris 6y ago
The “worst” of that set includes names like Zuckerberg, Thiel and even Sam Altman, among many others.[0] I’d be willing to bet that a pretty significant percentage of the tech elite have taken serious steps like this, this clearly isn’t a small set of obscure players. 0: https://www.inquisitr.com/3950643/billionaires-are-building-bunkers-in-new-zealand-prepping-for-the-apocalypse/ https://www.inquisitr.com/3950643/billionaires-are-building-...
- nickff 6y ago
  I don't understand why hedging against long-tail events is 'bad'. They bought large quantities of supplies, and hired a bunch of people to build them facilities which could be of benefit in the event of a catastrophe. The tradesmen doing the building were probably happy to do the work, and I am sure the supplies provided a number of manufacturing and administrative jobs. I don't see a problem; unless you think this pandemic was caused by bunker construction. Is buying a lot of insurance also evil?
  - Retric 6y ago
    Traveling to those bunkers could spread the virus. Just stay home is a completely viable option. Some basic risk analysis shows the trip increases risks and is therefore a dumb move even if the idea of a bunker could be useful in other situations.
    - jeromegv 6y ago
      Did any of them actually travelled to their bunker? Or are you blaming them for something that didn't happen?
      - techsupporter 6y ago
        According to published reports, yes: https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/e2-80-98we-needed-to-go-e2-80-99-rich-americans-activate-pandemic-escape-plans/ar-BB12V3En https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/e2-80-98we-needed-to-go...
    - bdamm 6y ago
      This is a form of critical thinking error. "They" wanted to build a safe destination in case of a multitude of possible conditions come to occur. You are looking with a historical lens on what has happened and then labeling them "dumb" based on the knowledge we have now. If you look at it that way, almost any disaster planning is "dumb".
      - Retric 6y ago
        No, you misunderstand. I am saying owning a bunker may be a valuable thing in some emergency’s. However, just because this is an emergency does not mean going to a bunker now is a good idea.
  - save_ferris 6y ago
    There’s something incredibly disingenuous about creating companies around the idea of “making the world a better place” and beading oneself as a world visionary while simultaneously taking extreme measures assuming the worst is about to happen. If the collective sentiment around the ruling class was that the world is becoming a better, safer place, why build the shelter? > Is buying a lot of insurance also evil? Generally, I don’t think so. Insurance exists to protect one’s finances, and it’s one of the oldest financial instruments out there. But you can’t eat an insurance policy, it can’t sustain life.
- wahern 6y ago
  You mean the Zuckerberg who funded the program that will now provide free COVID-19 testing to all California counties? https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/04/417191/ucsf-offer-free-covid-19-test-analysis-results-public-health-departments-all-58 https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/04/417191/ucsf-offer-free-cov...
  - save_ferris 6y ago
    To be clear, I’m not accusing Zuckerberg or anyone else of avoiding philanthropy altogether. No doubt Zuckerberg has donated a lot of money to charity. He has a major foundation whose stated goal is to improve wellbeing around the world and a massive social media company that constantly markets itself as making the world a better place. If his foundation and company are truly fulfilling their missions, why is he buying up land in Hawaii and elsewhere to go hide out if everything goes bust? Whether we like it not, people like Zuckerberg are some of the biggest leaders on the planet. We worship the kind of money and power people like him have. To see people like that so unsure of the world in which they have an immense amount of influence over deeply undercuts their image of being these brilliant and visionary leaders.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - ericd 6y ago
      Because people sometimes buy insurance for things even when they think they’re not likely to happen, and even as they’re working to try to make them not happen?
    - craftinator 6y ago
      > To see people like that so unsure of the world in which they have an immense amount of influence over deeply undercuts their image of being these brilliant and visionary leaders. This is a beautiful sentence. It is often touted, "If you don't like the culture you live in, change it". The response of most people is that they don't have the influence to change it, and it's better to just bare it until they can move on. The examples of Zuck, Thiel, and others who do have this influence, but choose to invest in fallback plans rather than throwing everything into making the needed changes says a lot about the mentality that breeds success in the US.
mayneack 6y ago
Who are the "best" of the Silicon Valley billionaires that they should be compared to?
throwlaplace 6y ago
Sorry who should we compare them to? https://www.fastcompany.com/90494347/american-billionaires-have-gotten-280-billion-richer-since-the-start-of-the-covid-19-pandemic https://www.fastcompany.com/90494347/american-billionaires-h... People at the top are profiting while people at the bottom are either sacrificing or outright dying.
GoodJokes 6y ago
Lol, the best of billionaires. Billionaires shouldn't exist.
majormajor 6y ago
There are many out there who will claim that one set is itself "the best" as proven by economic success. It's informative to look at the examples of how that isn't true.

It is when the worst of one set has the means to do much more good than the best of the other set, and yet squanders it in their greed.

founditincache 6y ago
The vast majority would behave the same in that position. Are you sure you wouldn't? We're far too likely to see things as character flaws when looking outward and as circumstance when looking inward.

happytoexplain 6y ago

I couldn't disagree more strongly when the things being compared are the wellbeing of humans.

save_ferris 6y ago

The “worst” of that set includes names like Zuckerberg, Thiel and even Sam Altman, among many others.[0] I’d be willing to bet that a pretty significant percentage of the tech elite have taken serious steps like this, this clearly isn’t a small set of obscure players. 0: https://www.inquisitr.com/3950643/billionaires-are-building-bunkers-in-new-zealand-prepping-for-the-apocalypse/ https://www.inquisitr.com/3950643/billionaires-are-building-...

nickff 6y ago
I don't understand why hedging against long-tail events is 'bad'. They bought large quantities of supplies, and hired a bunch of people to build them facilities which could be of benefit in the event of a catastrophe. The tradesmen doing the building were probably happy to do the work, and I am sure the supplies provided a number of manufacturing and administrative jobs. I don't see a problem; unless you think this pandemic was caused by bunker construction. Is buying a lot of insurance also evil?
- Retric 6y ago
  Traveling to those bunkers could spread the virus. Just stay home is a completely viable option. Some basic risk analysis shows the trip increases risks and is therefore a dumb move even if the idea of a bunker could be useful in other situations.
  - jeromegv 6y ago
    Did any of them actually travelled to their bunker? Or are you blaming them for something that didn't happen?
    - techsupporter 6y ago
      According to published reports, yes: https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/e2-80-98we-needed-to-go-e2-80-99-rich-americans-activate-pandemic-escape-plans/ar-BB12V3En https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/e2-80-98we-needed-to-go...
  - bdamm 6y ago
    This is a form of critical thinking error. "They" wanted to build a safe destination in case of a multitude of possible conditions come to occur. You are looking with a historical lens on what has happened and then labeling them "dumb" based on the knowledge we have now. If you look at it that way, almost any disaster planning is "dumb".
    - Retric 6y ago
      No, you misunderstand. I am saying owning a bunker may be a valuable thing in some emergency’s. However, just because this is an emergency does not mean going to a bunker now is a good idea.
- save_ferris 6y ago
  There’s something incredibly disingenuous about creating companies around the idea of “making the world a better place” and beading oneself as a world visionary while simultaneously taking extreme measures assuming the worst is about to happen. If the collective sentiment around the ruling class was that the world is becoming a better, safer place, why build the shelter? > Is buying a lot of insurance also evil? Generally, I don’t think so. Insurance exists to protect one’s finances, and it’s one of the oldest financial instruments out there. But you can’t eat an insurance policy, it can’t sustain life.
wahern 6y ago
You mean the Zuckerberg who funded the program that will now provide free COVID-19 testing to all California counties? https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/04/417191/ucsf-offer-free-covid-19-test-analysis-results-public-health-departments-all-58 https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/04/417191/ucsf-offer-free-cov...
- save_ferris 6y ago
  To be clear, I’m not accusing Zuckerberg or anyone else of avoiding philanthropy altogether. No doubt Zuckerberg has donated a lot of money to charity. He has a major foundation whose stated goal is to improve wellbeing around the world and a massive social media company that constantly markets itself as making the world a better place. If his foundation and company are truly fulfilling their missions, why is he buying up land in Hawaii and elsewhere to go hide out if everything goes bust? Whether we like it not, people like Zuckerberg are some of the biggest leaders on the planet. We worship the kind of money and power people like him have. To see people like that so unsure of the world in which they have an immense amount of influence over deeply undercuts their image of being these brilliant and visionary leaders.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - ericd 6y ago
    Because people sometimes buy insurance for things even when they think they’re not likely to happen, and even as they’re working to try to make them not happen?
  - craftinator 6y ago
    > To see people like that so unsure of the world in which they have an immense amount of influence over deeply undercuts their image of being these brilliant and visionary leaders. This is a beautiful sentence. It is often touted, "If you don't like the culture you live in, change it". The response of most people is that they don't have the influence to change it, and it's better to just bare it until they can move on. The examples of Zuck, Thiel, and others who do have this influence, but choose to invest in fallback plans rather than throwing everything into making the needed changes says a lot about the mentality that breeds success in the US.

mayneack 6y ago

Who are the "best" of the Silicon Valley billionaires that they should be compared to?

throwlaplace 6y ago

Sorry who should we compare them to? https://www.fastcompany.com/90494347/american-billionaires-have-gotten-280-billion-richer-since-the-start-of-the-covid-19-pandemic https://www.fastcompany.com/90494347/american-billionaires-h... People at the top are profiting while people at the bottom are either sacrificing or outright dying.

GoodJokes 6y ago

Lol, the best of billionaires. Billionaires shouldn't exist.

majormajor 6y ago

There are many out there who will claim that one set is itself "the best" as proven by economic success. It's informative to look at the examples of how that isn't true.