4 ms·
All the comments declaring that $2m isn't broke are not seeing the wood for the trees. No other person in history has given away this much of their wealth whils
by jack_riminton 6y ago
All the comments declaring that $2m isn't broke are not seeing the wood for the trees. No other person in history has given away this much of their wealth whilst living. No-one.
Yes the headline might be misleading but ffs stop nit picking and fully appreciate what he's done
- StavrosK 6y agoSeriously, goddamn. He had, say, 2002 million, he gave away 2000 and he kept 2 for himself, and people are fucking OUTRAGED. If he had 2000 million and gave all of it away, well, people still wouldn't be satisfied because people suck.
- giantg2 6y agoI think the "not picking" is justified. If the journalist who wrote this can't get the headline right or intentionally made it misleading, than can we trust the rest of their content? Journalistic integrity is a valid concern.
- jack_riminton 6y agoJournalists making attention grabbing headlines is not big news A man giving away $8bn leaving himself $2m really is. I mean it really really is.
- giantg2 6y ago"A man giving away $8bn leaving himself $2m really is." I agree. If it really is that big news, then a title phrased the way you did above would be work and be truthful.
- pc86 6y agoOh come on, nobody in this thread shitting on the guy who gave away $8 billion is concerned with journalistic integrity. $2 million in retirement is $80k/yr. Most of the people reading this thread will retire with twice that or more.
- giantg2 6y agoI don't see people knocking the Billionaire, only the title.
- freddie_mercury 6y agoYour math is based on the "4% rule" but that assumes you retire at age 65. Chuck Feeney is 89, so it is more like $350,000 a year. That said, I agree with you that nitpicking headlines is a constant on HN. It is low value, gets tiresome, doesn't actually improve the web, and makes me stay away from HN in favor of other communities that actually want to engage with articles and not just their headlines.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago> It is low value, gets tiresome, doesn't actually improve the web, and makes me stay away from HN in favor of other communities that actually want to engage with articles and not just their headlines. I find it to be high value. The misleading-ness of a title is a proxy for quality of content, in my opinion.
- pc86 6y agoIsn't the 4% rule to avoid eating into the principal? Why would that change based on your age?
- artemonster 6y agoJust another reason for rich people to justify their current behaviour. Why donate, if you would still be shat on by envios poor bastards? Fml
- Glavnokoman 6y agoDo you really believe that if you are not aware of something that did not happen? For one example read this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crates_of_Thebes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crates_of_Thebes . There are perhaps many, many, many more.
- Bancakes 6y agoWho's nitpicking? It's an objectively incorrect headline.
- jack_riminton 6y agoMissing the whole thrust and pointing out that a minor aspect is objectively correct is almost the definition of nitpicking
- Bancakes 6y agoDonating is cool. Does he want a medal, too?
- ykevinator3 6y agoYou are so right. I get happiness out of 1 of every 100 hn stories. This was a big one.