5 ms·

Hey Sony, you should consider: http://www.freebsdfoundation.org/donate/sponsors http://www.freebsdfoundation.org/donate/sponsors I guess they could be the big

by sigil 13y ago

Hey Sony, you should consider: http://www.freebsdfoundation.org/donate/sponsors http://www.freebsdfoundation.org/donate/sponsors I guess they could be the big anonymous donor, although I always assumed that was Apple.

avar 13y ago
Why would any public company make anonymous donations? Isn't it going to become public anyway via public accounting? I'm not familiar with U.S. law in this regard.
- bjterry 13y ago
  A public company is not required to disclose its individual donations except insofar as they would be material to making an investment decision. The bar for that is tremendously high for a company like Apple or Sony relative to the size of any such donation.
- gilgoomesh 13y ago
  Apple doesn't make many public donations as a matter of policy. Steve Jobs was famously against publicly declared donations – he thought it was hypocritical, stole credit from the recipients and diminished the concept of selfless giving. http://www.news.com.au/money/money-matters/steve-jobs-secretly-gave-millions-to-charity-publically-criticised-for-not-doing-enough/story-e6frfmd9-1226650636880 http://www.news.com.au/money/money-matters/steve-jobs-secret...
  - baby 13y ago
    Wow, that's actually very very good for someone that seemed so harsh. On a side note, this Bono guy is everywhere, does that mean that Jobs was in the same sect thingy?
    - lmm 13y ago
      We're talking about a guy who stole from his business partner. I suspect his real motive was making an excuse for never donating anything.
      - speeder 13y ago
        He became religious with some Asiatic religion before he came up with his theory on donations. And there was here in HN a post about how his family did donatelots of money.
      - mamp 13y ago
        Bit harsh. True to his work Jobs gave away tens of millions of dollars without publicity. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2330727/How-Steve-Jobs-wife-secretly-gave-away-TEN-OF-MILLIONS-money-charity--critics-accused-doing-enough.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2330727/How-Steve-Jo...
  - devcpp 13y ago
    1. I don't see how it would be hypocritical. 2. It should steal credit form the recipient. The money is what makes charities work, more than the work in itself. 3. What's so great about selfless giving? If donations can increase by publishing the donor's name, so be it! Is there even a single downside to selfish giving? Money is money, no matter the intent.
    - icebraining 13y ago
      Are you arguing with Steve Jobs? Because I should warn you not to expect a reply.
    - Anderkent 13y ago
      1. Usually people like to pretend they're giving money to charities to fix some world problem and not to improve their status. Doing that while donating non-anonymously is hypocritical. 2. Are you saying it doesn't matter who you give your money to, because it's the money that matters and not how it's spent? Surely you see how that is wrong. 3. Selfish giving encourages donating to popular charities, not ones with the highest impact. Thus money is wasted when an inefficient (or downright harmful) charity gets popular, as people donate to signal status instead of trying to improve the world.
    - gilgoomesh 13y ago
      I'm guessing at someone else's motives here. These aren't necessarily my feelings... > 1. I don't see how it would be hypocritical. If you loved giving, you'd give everything you owned. To stand up and say "I love to give" when you have no intention of giving 100% to charity is hypocritical. You don't love to give, you're just buying attention. > 2. It should steal credit form the recipient. The money is what makes charities work, more than the work in itself. Depending on the charity, it's the people who donate their time that are the valuable ones. In any case, giving half a percent of your annual income is hardly backbreaking labor. To the obscenely wealthy, its often just a tax write-off. It's valuable to the charity but less of a sacrifice than others are making. You're getting re-rewarded for your wealth, while others who are poorer are giving more (as a percentage) and receiving less. Hardly a charitable distribution of gratitude. > 3. What's so great about selfless giving? If donations can increase by publishing the donor's name, so be it! Is there even a single downside to selfish giving? Money is money, no matter the intent. Jobs was a Buddhist and selfless giving without receiving anything in return is considered a valuable trait to Buddhists (true humility). Otherwise it's not giving, it's more receiving.
- phaus 13y ago
  Not saying it applies in this case, but one reason might be religious belief. Certain parts of the bible discourage seeking attention for charitable acts.
  - ekianjo 13y ago
    Interesting - can you track back the reference?
    - bcv 13y ago
      https://startpage.com/do/search?q=bible+anonymous+charity https://startpage.com/do/search?q=bible+anonymous+charity
      - ekianjo 13y ago
        Thanks, Got the quote : Matthew 6: 1 "Take heed that you do not do your charitable deeds before men, to be seen by them. Otherwise you have no reward from your Father in heaven. 2 Therefore, when you do a charitable deed, do not sound a trumpet before you as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory from men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. 3 But when you do a charitable deed, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 that your charitable deed may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will Himself reward you openly.
dmix 13y ago
> I guess they could be the big anonymous donor, although I always assumed that was Apple. NSA? DHS?

by sigil 13y ago

avar 13y ago

Why would any public company make anonymous donations? Isn't it going to become public anyway via public accounting? I'm not familiar with U.S. law in this regard.

bjterry 13y ago
A public company is not required to disclose its individual donations except insofar as they would be material to making an investment decision. The bar for that is tremendously high for a company like Apple or Sony relative to the size of any such donation.
gilgoomesh 13y ago
Apple doesn't make many public donations as a matter of policy. Steve Jobs was famously against publicly declared donations – he thought it was hypocritical, stole credit from the recipients and diminished the concept of selfless giving. http://www.news.com.au/money/money-matters/steve-jobs-secretly-gave-millions-to-charity-publically-criticised-for-not-doing-enough/story-e6frfmd9-1226650636880 http://www.news.com.au/money/money-matters/steve-jobs-secret...
- baby 13y ago
  Wow, that's actually very very good for someone that seemed so harsh. On a side note, this Bono guy is everywhere, does that mean that Jobs was in the same sect thingy?
  - lmm 13y ago
    We're talking about a guy who stole from his business partner. I suspect his real motive was making an excuse for never donating anything.
    - speeder 13y ago
      He became religious with some Asiatic religion before he came up with his theory on donations. And there was here in HN a post about how his family did donatelots of money.
    - mamp 13y ago
      Bit harsh. True to his work Jobs gave away tens of millions of dollars without publicity. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2330727/How-Steve-Jobs-wife-secretly-gave-away-TEN-OF-MILLIONS-money-charity--critics-accused-doing-enough.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2330727/How-Steve-Jo...
- devcpp 13y ago
  1. I don't see how it would be hypocritical. 2. It should steal credit form the recipient. The money is what makes charities work, more than the work in itself. 3. What's so great about selfless giving? If donations can increase by publishing the donor's name, so be it! Is there even a single downside to selfish giving? Money is money, no matter the intent.
  - icebraining 13y ago
    Are you arguing with Steve Jobs? Because I should warn you not to expect a reply.
  - Anderkent 13y ago
    1. Usually people like to pretend they're giving money to charities to fix some world problem and not to improve their status. Doing that while donating non-anonymously is hypocritical. 2. Are you saying it doesn't matter who you give your money to, because it's the money that matters and not how it's spent? Surely you see how that is wrong. 3. Selfish giving encourages donating to popular charities, not ones with the highest impact. Thus money is wasted when an inefficient (or downright harmful) charity gets popular, as people donate to signal status instead of trying to improve the world.
  - gilgoomesh 13y ago
    I'm guessing at someone else's motives here. These aren't necessarily my feelings... > 1. I don't see how it would be hypocritical. If you loved giving, you'd give everything you owned. To stand up and say "I love to give" when you have no intention of giving 100% to charity is hypocritical. You don't love to give, you're just buying attention. > 2. It should steal credit form the recipient. The money is what makes charities work, more than the work in itself. Depending on the charity, it's the people who donate their time that are the valuable ones. In any case, giving half a percent of your annual income is hardly backbreaking labor. To the obscenely wealthy, its often just a tax write-off. It's valuable to the charity but less of a sacrifice than others are making. You're getting re-rewarded for your wealth, while others who are poorer are giving more (as a percentage) and receiving less. Hardly a charitable distribution of gratitude. > 3. What's so great about selfless giving? If donations can increase by publishing the donor's name, so be it! Is there even a single downside to selfish giving? Money is money, no matter the intent. Jobs was a Buddhist and selfless giving without receiving anything in return is considered a valuable trait to Buddhists (true humility). Otherwise it's not giving, it's more receiving.
phaus 13y ago
Not saying it applies in this case, but one reason might be religious belief. Certain parts of the bible discourage seeking attention for charitable acts.
- ekianjo 13y ago
  Interesting - can you track back the reference?
  - bcv 13y ago
    https://startpage.com/do/search?q=bible+anonymous+charity https://startpage.com/do/search?q=bible+anonymous+charity
    - ekianjo 13y ago
      Thanks, Got the quote : Matthew 6: 1 "Take heed that you do not do your charitable deeds before men, to be seen by them. Otherwise you have no reward from your Father in heaven. 2 Therefore, when you do a charitable deed, do not sound a trumpet before you as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory from men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. 3 But when you do a charitable deed, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 that your charitable deed may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will Himself reward you openly.

dmix 13y ago

> I guess they could be the big anonymous donor, although I always assumed that was Apple. NSA? DHS?