Of course those with resources, skills, etc., can make a very big impact... highly leveraged based on the extra skill or wealth. And there is a sense in which

Of course those with resources, skills, etc., can make a very big impact... highly leveraged based on the extra skill or wealth. And there is a sense in which this is the only relevant metric for philanthropy. However, since most people like to infer that philanthropy is an indication of a person's good character, I think the sacrifice metric is also relevant. In my ideal world, philanthropy would be viewed as one of many behaviors that might be fun and self-actualizing for a person (selfish) and this sort of selfishness would not be viewed as a bad thing. The problem (and the reason I felt it necessary to comment) is b/c many people are all to ready to praise a rich person for a donation that represents no true investment of self, akin to me giving a homeless guy the half sandwich I couldn't finish at a restaurant and had boxed. Piling praise on a billionaire for donating $500K is reminiscent of the days when serfs knelt before the land owners in hopes of a crumb or a coin. This is not intended as a criticism of Sergey at all, btw.