7 ms·
All I know, is if I was worth $200B and owned the island of Lanai, you would never hear from me again. Ellison, Musk, Zuckerberg and the rest of these weirdos a
by arrosenberg 2y ago
All I know, is if I was worth $200B and owned the island of Lanai, you would never hear from me again. Ellison, Musk, Zuckerberg and the rest of these weirdos are deeply damaged human beings.
- tanseydavid 2y agoAvarice is a disease and it is contagious.
- logicchains 2y ago[flagged]
- taurknaut 2y agonobody deserves to be wealthy. The concept is simply nonsensical.
- autoexec 2y agoWhat's the name of the disease where people see someone who gained a lot of money by abusing/exploiting/stealing from others and thinks to themselves "They deserve that money"?
- erellsworth 2y agoCapitalism?
- autoexec 2y agoOuch. I really want to believe that capitalism is more like a condition which can be beneficial to the host and population as long as it's carefully managed.
- quickslowdown 2y agoPretty twisted take on the sentiment of the comment you're replying to.
- fsloth 2y agoIt’s psychologically very rewarding to be needed. And CEOs are needed all the time.
- ulfw 2y agoNobody needs them. That's a ridiculous statement. Everyone is replaceable.
- surement 2y agothe people with the highest compensation packages are by definition the least replaceable
- esseph 2y agoThat's not exactly true. High compensation can be offset by the risk a position entails. Example: CISOs are feeling a lot of pressure these days
- schmookeeg 2y agoHave you never been in a committee meeting? The "E" in CEO is to listen to a room full of noncommittal, hedging, sycophantic people and then chart a course based on their weak signals. Arguably the CEO needs all of the talent of a dart thrower; but they're the one that takes the stand, or fall, of the decisions made. I agree they're replaceable. I don't agree that they're not needed. :)
- archagon 2y agoCEOs love taking full responsibility for their decisions, the extent of which is apparently uttering the words “full responsibility.”
- eesmith 2y agoSo are nurses.
- MaxPock 2y agoYou'd be bored after a week .Maslows hierarchy of needs would see you craving recognition,solving hunger in Africa etc in your free time
- dowager_dan99 2y agoUnlike hunger, health, etc. that are at the base, Maslow's hierarchy says nothing about fulfilling your AI needs. Even if you argue this is a manifestation of "self", it's at the top, and least impactful for the broadest audience.
- CamperBob2 2y agoEllison no doubt genuinely thinks that such an effort is his highest calling, the best contribution he can possibly make to humanity's well-being. In a more enlightened society, one not prone to misusing information to persecute one another, he'd arguably be right.
- autoexec 2y agoEllison no doubt is primarily, if not exclusively, concerned with his own well-being even at the expense of humanity. He may or may not actually believe otherwise, but his wealth objectively disqualifies him from being altruistic or even trustworthy.
- sangnoir 2y ago> Ellison no doubt genuinely thinks that such an effort is his highest calling, the best contribution he can possibly make to humanity's well-being It's likely much simpler: Larry thinks the solution to (his) immortality - or longevity at the very least - may be contained in Americans' collective DNA, and AI may be able to tease the answers out.
- red-iron-pine 2y agoEllison has made it clear that he thinks the US needs a Chinese style social credit surveillance system, and is likely concerned that the proles are gonna rise up and sink his boats. Mapping DNA is just another part of that schema.
- almost_usual 2y agoEllison has a desire to be immortal.
- vanviegen 2y agoI read that as immoral. Fits just as well.
- toomuchtodo 2y agoAnd yet, the only immortally he will obtain is history remembering him…unfavorably. Paperclip maximizers are weird, but at least we all die eventually. Checks and balances.
- euroderf 2y agoCertainly the legal profession has gained a lot from him.
- codr7 2y agoThey all do, desperately trying to avoid whatever consequences that kind of life is bound to have.
- mrguyorama 2y agoGod forbid we all be made equal in the end. People like him abhor being made equal above all.
- rconti 2y agoYeah, it's actually a little weird because typically as people become richer they become more risk-averse, as you have more to lose.
- arrosenberg 2y agoRisk aversion can take different forms. A paranoid Larry Ellison vows to build a security state. A paranoid Andrew Carnegie built libraries, universities, and concert halls.
- johannes1234321 2y agoAt the same time: * You become that rich only if hoarding money brings you joy and is your key driver * You can buy a lot of things, thus one of the few challenges is becoming richer than the peers
- jrm4 2y agoThis is exactly backwards, I think. "Risk-averse" (really, wealth loving) people, uh, loving amassing wealth.
- disambiguation 2y agoAlternatively, there's no real risk if you still have a lot left over even after losing.
- aylmao 2y ago+1. It's very different gambling $10 million if it's all the money you have, vs if it's just 4.58% of your net worth, as is the case with Ellison for example.
- xlbuttplug2 2y agoIf you were to amass 200B, you'd be unrecognizable to your current self.
- toomuchtodo 2y agoNo, I strongly disagree with this. Wealth does not change you, it amplifies who you already were. Examples: Melinda French Gates, MacKenzie Scott
- xlbuttplug2 2y agoI was more referring to the idea that the journey to attain such wealth requires you to lose a part of yourself along the way.
- toomuchtodo 2y agoThis presumes these folks had that part to lose. Based on all available evidence, I don’t believe they had the empathy, compassion, or emotional health in the first place. Even after climbing the mountain, they can’t stop, they can’t help themselves. It’s just how they’re wired. They don’t know what enough is or feels like.
- montagg 2y ago> This presumes these folks had that part to lose. Based on all available evidence, I don’t believe they had the empathy, compassion, or emotional health in the first place. Even after climbing the mountain, they can’t stop, they can’t help themselves. It’s just how they’re wired. Those are basically the same thing though. Acquiring extreme wealth filters out people with empathy; they either never had it or lost it.
- jrm4 2y agoAre we sure about this? McKenzie Bezos and Melinda Gates are, of course, different -- but they really really really appear to be doing what a normal person would do, given that amount of money.
- jrm4 2y agoThe best things that Bezos (and arguably Bill Gates) did was get divorced. Observe the ex-wives doing what a normal/sane person would do with that amount of money.
- anonzzzies 2y agoYep, that has been really interesting to watch. But those are anomalies; why can't we have less weirdos that make money?
- yoyohello13 2y agoBy definition, average people will make an average amount of money. It takes extraordinary people to make extraordinary amounts of money. Unfortunately, our system seems to be optimized to reward extraordinary psychopaths.
- montagg 2y agoThe money itself also isolates them and makes them more likely to become psychopaths, imo. It's a positive feedback loop on whatever differences allowed them to obtain that wealth, and those personality features eventually metastasize.
- aylmao 2y agoIMO because you have to be a psychopath/sociopath to make that amount of money. We're talking hundred's of billions of dollars here; $20 million is already a big fortune where 2% interest gets you $200,000. These people (on paper) have 5 orders of magnitude (100,000x) more. At that point you aren't doing all the questionable things it takes to get there for the money. IMO you have to be broken in some way, shape or form to do what it takes to get there.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- karwash 2y agoI would do the exact same thing, but I strongly suspect that this is the precise reason why neither of us is worth $200B and owns the island of Lanai.
- tonymet 2y agothe top of the money game is the bottom of the real game
- bilater 2y agodude is living his best life. and its an open question whether you need to be damaged to be worth that amount of money.
- jcgrillo 2y agoIf I was worth half a ten thousandth of that you'd never hear from me again, and I'd be living it up on the $600+k/yr my $10M pays me to do nothing. Put another way, what kind of a sicko keeps going and amasses 20000x "fuck you money"?
- BobaFloutist 2y agoI think one of the problems is that a lot of them start deciding "The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a billion dollars is a good guy with a billion dollars." but then they get so caught up in getting a billion dollars that they don't notice themselves becoming a bad guy.
- orionsbelt 2y agoIt's not about the money, it's for fun and/or belief in the mission. I agree with you for someone that has a miserable client-service job, such as an investment banker that is still slaving away so he can keep up with the Joneses. But Musk, Zuckerberg, Ellison can do whatever the fuck they want. They don't need to take shit from anyone, and they get to build products and shape the world. Musk, for example, wants to get humans to Mars. To the extent he cares about money anymore, it's in service of that goal, which does require a LOT of resources.
- jcgrillo 2y agoWith a guaranteed salary of $300k/yr and unlimited free time I could do whatever the fuck I want. I'd plant a garden, brew beer, work on fun home/shop automation projects, build cool car stuff. All while being paid handsomely to do so. And I'd travel, go sailing, go hiking, go snowboarding. But I have no delusions of grandeur about "getting humans to Mars" or whatever, that shit sounds stressful, and like a waste of life.
- Kostic 2y agoIf life is only hedonism to you, then sure. It would be a waste.
- geodel 2y agoAll I know that it is easy to say if I had X I will do Y when one doesn't have X and no chance of having X in their lifetime.
- mewpmewp2 2y agoAlso it is very common to think that once you achieve X you will be happy and maybe you will be for a moment, but then you start to feel empty again and you think now if I only had Y I would be happy in a never ending cycle. It is human nature.
- mrguyorama 2y agoThis doesn't pass muster when there are literally millions of us living perfectly normal lives at $70k a year or less and living enjoyable, "simple" lives with plentiful hobbies. The reality is that it takes absurdly few resources to make a normal and well adjusted human happy. Happiness doesn't come from money, though unhappiness can come directly from poverty. If you are fed, housed, and have enough free time to explore your interests, and have sufficient social connections, that's usually all it takes. The way quality scales also means that unless you are playing dumb ideological games like "Getting the best", you will have satisfaction beyond your dreams at a 2X price point from the basics. Eating steak every day isn't that much more expensive than eating beans and rice every day, and certainly doesn't require taking home $100k more than the US average. Even in a high cost of living port city in a liberal place that embraces weirdness and hasn't built a new housing unit in a decade, $150k total before taxes gets you the ability to outbid most other people looking for housing, enables you to afford buying the expensive eggs just because you feel empathy for chickens, allows you to buy beef when it's not on sale as a regular experience because it's more convenient than finding recipes using cheaper meats, allows you to buy a very nice car and pay exorbitant parking for it, gets you more healthcare than you can use, gets you an overpriced getaway vacation a year, and still putting plenty of money into retirement accounts and a savings account, pays for cheaper colleges, allows you to afford an overpriced gaming computer AND consoles, allows you to buy a new VR headset you never use etc. With a small increase in pay or an ability to live away from the city center, you can raise kids with good expected outcomes. Kids are expensive but the people insisting on $50k a year private schooling are literally insane. If you are still not satisfied with "stuff" at that point, the problem is not money, the problem is you. The hedonistic treadmill (and more importantly, normalcy bias) does NOT imply that already rich people will seek more wealth. It implies that people who seek wealth will never be satisfied by the amount of wealth they currently have. People who don't seek wealth but still get it will be satisfied with that amount of wealth. If you are happy with your minimal needs met, you will still be happy as a millionaire, and if you are not happy with your needs met, you will continue being unhappy as a trillionaire. Some broken people have "I need more money" as a trait. We shouldn't build society to optimize around them. The moment you breach a billion dollars net worth, you should only be allowed to be paid in teams of psychologists dedicated to finding out your fucking issue.
- booleandilemma 2y agoAnd yet you went out of your way to include your name in your HN username. Even with what little power and money you have, your vanity shines through. No, I'd imagine if you had $200B we'd see your name everywhere.
- arrosenberg 2y agoThat's an odd assumption to make. HackerNews comments don't really bring any kind of posterity. I chose to do that because it forced me to be more thoughtful and less troll-y with my comments at a time when I found that to be valuable.
- typeofhuman 2y agoI wonder what a poorer version of your current self would say about what you are doing day-to-day.
- cjbgkagh 2y agoYou’re looking at them from an individual basis, they each have a large collection of other individuals that have their personal wealth tied to the wealth of the central billionaire figure. Those individuals are highly incentivized to convince the billionaire to continue increasing their wealth. One such story may be that Timmy is working hard at your company to help his sick grandma and he needs to stock price to increase 10% this year in order to do so. If you don’t deliver then his grandma will die. Multiply the that by 1000 Timmies with 1000 grandmas and I could see why it might be hard to say no.
- arrosenberg 2y agoI'm not going to empathize with them based on a slightly derivative version of the Nuremberg defense. The fact that this is how they're choosing to deploy their wealth speaks volumes - all for me, nothing for the public good. Why not collectively agree to limit their wealth to a sustainable billion dollars each? They could police each other on that just as easily as the dragon-hoarding they're doing now.
- cjbgkagh 2y agoNot even close to the Nuremberg “following orders” defense. Empathy is an essential component to understanding and understanding is an essential component to productive change. This is on the fairly safe assumption that most changes, especially random or chaotic, would be unproductive or even counter productive.
- arrosenberg 2y agoIt is though - according to you, the would-be oligarchs are acting collectively against the public due to social pressure from the other oligarchs. When Larry shows some for me, I’ll show some for him. Only one of us is in a position to cause the other harm.
- cjbgkagh 2y agoWhy would Larry want to change your behavior, or even think about you at all? Requiring such reciprocity as a prerequisite only hurts yourself making it less likely you’ll achieve change or at least the kind of changes you want.
- emrah 2y ago"Damaged" has a particular connotation that is one particular opinion, but we can certainly say they are very different, and presumably got even more different over time from their starting point which was already very different