You know, I actually tried. I wanted to help get that $500 into some kind of charity, so I spent a bunch of time enumerating all of the article's arguments and

You know, I actually tried. I wanted to help get that $500 into some kind of charity, so I spent a bunch of time enumerating all of the article's arguments and tried to craft some supporting rhetoric. But there's not a single concern that holds water. They're probably valid questions -- newcomers to Watsi probably think them up on their own as they try to decide whether they want to donate -- but a legitimate concern? An actual, bona-fide "Watsi needs to address X or their trajectory will be at risk" concern? Or "we should be worried, because Watsi's success would have negative consequences for X other group" concern? Nope. There simply aren't any. So either I'm just not clever enough, or there aren't any arguments that can be made against Watsi which don't simultaneously make the inquisitor sound like a complete douchenozzle. As far as I can tell, Watsi is the perfect example of (a) technology uplifting quality of life, (b) Silicon Valley making it possible (would Watsi have been possible without SV?), and (c) that it's possible to live life without being forced to be motivated by greed or glory (the Watsi founders just want to help people). Man, I can't wait for the Watsi API to roll out.