4 ms·

I think maybe GP was talking about what Bill Gates chose to do with his money and influence once he had them. In terms of the number of lives saved and improved

I think maybe GP was talking about what Bill Gates chose to do with his money and influence once he had them. In terms of the number of lives saved and improved, Bill Gates has had more impact than most of us could ever hope to.

pdonis 5y ago
> In terms of the number of lives saved and improved But Bill Gates did that after he already had status. He didn't gain status by doing that.
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  Arguably he did gain status. He did just what the writer of the article suggested. Instead of putting all of his effort into 'richest person in the world' status, he picked another thing to be high status in. Seems to have worked. He's not the richest guy in the world any more (admittedly he ain't far off, either), but he's arguably worth more respect than Bezos or Musk. Unless you're against microchips in vaccines, of course.
  - bigiain 5y ago
    There’s no doubt Mackenzie Scott has gained a huge amount of status through how she’s dealt with acquiring enormous wealth. For me at least, she has way more respect than Gates Bezos and Musk combined…
- gumby 5y ago
  He was trying to launder his reputation after all the stuff that came out in the trials, his connections to Epstein (which went back to before E’s first arrest) etc.
burntoutfire 5y ago
Whatever positive effect his philantropy has, it has to be offset by the damage he's done to the world, by slowing down progress (famous asshole predatory behaviour of MS of the nineties) in order to make his money in the first place. Only then we can try to assess if Bill Gates' overall impact on the world was actually positive.
- leaflets2 5y ago
  Just noting that apparently you're assuming that another company, who had been there instead of MS, would have acted in better ways Looking at Apple, Oracle, Google etc -- how likely does that seem

4 ms·

I think maybe GP was talking about what Bill Gates chose to do with his money and influence once he had them. In terms of the number of lives saved and improved

by hallway_monitor 5y ago

pdonis 5y ago
> In terms of the number of lives saved and improved But Bill Gates did that after he already had status. He didn't gain status by doing that.
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  Arguably he did gain status. He did just what the writer of the article suggested. Instead of putting all of his effort into 'richest person in the world' status, he picked another thing to be high status in. Seems to have worked. He's not the richest guy in the world any more (admittedly he ain't far off, either), but he's arguably worth more respect than Bezos or Musk. Unless you're against microchips in vaccines, of course.
  - bigiain 5y ago
    There’s no doubt Mackenzie Scott has gained a huge amount of status through how she’s dealt with acquiring enormous wealth. For me at least, she has way more respect than Gates Bezos and Musk combined…
- gumby 5y ago
  He was trying to launder his reputation after all the stuff that came out in the trials, his connections to Epstein (which went back to before E’s first arrest) etc.
burntoutfire 5y ago
Whatever positive effect his philantropy has, it has to be offset by the damage he's done to the world, by slowing down progress (famous asshole predatory behaviour of MS of the nineties) in order to make his money in the first place. Only then we can try to assess if Bill Gates' overall impact on the world was actually positive.
- leaflets2 5y ago
  Just noting that apparently you're assuming that another company, who had been there instead of MS, would have acted in better ways Looking at Apple, Oracle, Google etc -- how likely does that seem